D300 + SB800 = Crap

[gabriel_afana]

"First of all, your initial complaint is not accurate. I just tested my 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX on my D300. The AF-assist LED on the SB-800 would switch on in the entire zoom range for that lens, from 17mm. "

 

Shun, are you 100% sure of this? Because after doing a lot of thinking, I decided if this exact lens works (the exact one I am planning on getting), I'll keep the D300 and use this 17-55mm as my main lens. I'll then only use my fisheye for behind-the-DJ shot or crowd shows...both of which usually have plenty of light to focus without any assistance.

[ruslan]

Don't say the car is bad, learn to drive first.

[danielleetaylor]

<P><i>The switch to canon will cost me at least an extra $1000+. Then I still have to buy my new lenses....</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>I'm curious where the extra $1,000 comes in. Right now the 5D is $1899, so you're going to lose about $200 assuming you can return the D300 and apply the amount to the 5D. If you can get $600 for your Nikon fisheye you've got the Canon 15mm fisheye. Though that will be much wider on the 5D since there's no crop. I'm not sure if you're after a 15/16mm fisheye or a 24mm equivalent final field of view. If you're after 24mm, then you will either recover money ($300 24 f/2.8) or spend a lot more ($1,200 24mm f/1.4). If f/2.8 works for you then you recover $300, putting you ahead.</P>

<P></P>

<P>If you're going to dump the 75-300 and 24-85 for new f/2.8 zooms any way, then it doesn't matter whether you move to Canon or not, you've got to spend more money to do that in either system. So yes, you have to spend more money if you want to move to the Canon 24-70 f/2.8, but you're moving to a lens you want.</P>

<P></P>

<P>If you're going to replace the 75-300 with an f/2.8 telezoom, the Canon and Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 IS/VR lenses are about the same, though Canon gives you the choice of three other models at different price points. And unless you're using the telephoto at the raves, if you move to Canon give strong consideration to the 70-200 f/4's. They're optically just as good, and that 1 stop doesn't matter much with the 5D in normal circumstances, just bump the ISO.</P>

<P></P>

<P>I don't mean to push you to another system. Normally I'm the guy who says systems don't matter. But if you're making money with these rave shoots and will be doing a lot of them, it seems to play into the strengths of full frame.</P>

[danielleetaylor]

I just typed that not thinking about the fact that if you moved to Canon and got the 24-70 f/2.8 there's no point in a 24 f/2.8 prime :-)

 

Again I don't know if you're after a fisheye look or if you're after a 24mm equivalent FoV. If the latter, you could apply whatever money you get from your 16mm to a 24-70 zoom.

[kenny_c]

ok seriously... do you really need to focus a fisheye?

[jose_angel]

Gabriel, perhaps I`m a bit pessimistic, but theory is great and reality looks to be just another different world. In my humble experience I have noticed that under some silly conditions like this one described by you, no AF system, D300, D3 or whatever works faster than a carefully pre-focused technique. I wonder if the world best camera AF illuminator will work with a fisheye at one feet. If so, I wonder how you will find and maintain the perfectly focused subject (with a fisheye) where all is under fast movement. A perfect focus at f2.8 only makes sense to me at very close distances, where a slight movement will get the subject out of focus in a moment. The AF illuminator needs just a little time to work, and then the AF system to catch focus. After that, the foolish dancer is one meter away. Refocus. Refocus. Refocus. If you use continuos AF, I`m pretty sure your subject will be -more- or -less- but probably -never- in perfect focus. I have never been in that situation, but I really think that there will be a little difference in AF vs pre-focus results.

 

Perhaps I`m the one that lives in an odd world...

[ian_packman1]

wow. just wow. i mean, i wholeheartedly agree this combination is totally crap. </sarcasm>

[gabriel_afana]

"I'm curious where the extra $1,000 comes in."

 

I still have a D70 that I use and my partner is still going to use it. I need to keep all of my current nikon equipment because of this. Therefore I must buy a new speedflash and fisheye for the canon (hence the $1,000+ increase). Then of course the cost of the new zooming 2.8 lenses (but thats something I need to buy regardless if I stick with nikon or go to canon).

 

"ok seriously... do you really need to focus a fisheye?"

Yes - Please read my long post above.

 

"A perfect focus at f2.8 only makes sense to me at very close distances, where a slight movement will get the subject out of focus in a moment. "

In the environment that I shoot, I am packed in tight in a crowd of 3,000-15,000 (depending on the size of the event) and to get more than a foot of space to step back and take a picture is a wonderful thing. Becasue of this, I am literally in-their-face with the fisheye. I *must* shoot at f/2.8 because of the lighting conditions (again, please read my long post above for a full understanding). Therefore, focus is VERY important and I cannot do it manually (because it is nearly total darkness) and I cant fix the focus because I am too close to the subjects with an f/2.8.

 

"wow. just wow. i mean, i wholeheartedly agree this combination is totally crap."

Do not get me wrong...I love Nikons - This is why I have a D70, D80, and now a D300. I didn't buy it becasue its total crap (duh). What mean by my statement is that for me and my exact shooting situation, the D300+sb800 truely is useless. Although Nikon says this is the way it was intentionally designed, I disagree. It sounds like a bug to me. I think Nikon knows that too because they addressed the problem on the D3 with a firmware update...nothing yet for the D300 though.

[mike_halliwell]

Just thought I'd add my pennyworth to this ...As pointed out by Robert Budding above, the Hyperfocal at f2 is 21ft. However at that distance with the SB-800s power and an ISO of 800, you could easily afford f5.6. there the HFD is just 7.5 ft; switch to MF, put a bit of 24hr masking tape on the barrel to prevent accidental movement, pop the sb-800 on f5.6 and fire away. If you can see nothing through the view finder, tape a mini-maglight (securely!) to the side of the 800 axial to the lens axis. Aim the camera simply by looking where the maglight is pointing. If you want a really 'funky' set up you could make a simple rig with 4 maglights mounted on the lens barrel, each one aiming at a separate corner of the FOV, I guess (big guess) these are angled out at about 45 degrees for a 16mm. I made a similar set up with 4 very small laser pointers so I could aim the camera accurately for IR with an R72 on the front (thus black viewfinder).

[ian_packman1]

I'm only playing with you Gabriel, excuse me for not being very constructive. Looks like Mike has a most excellent solution to your woes.

[jose_angel]

<i>"... I *must* shoot at f/2.8 because of the lighting conditions... "</i><p>

Excuse me if I misunderstand you... <i>"I have the d300 with MD10 battery pack, sb800 with gary fong lightsphere</i>. I understand that you want to use flash, isn`t it? With a SB800 at less than 6 feet, you can shoot at any aperture you like. ASA 200, 16mm lens at f22. With an hyperfocal at 0.58 meters you`ll have almost from the lens cap up to the moon in focus. Don`t tell me that diffraction will be then a problem. Am I missing something?

[gabriel_afana]

**************<BR>

"... I *must* shoot at f/2.8 because of the lighting conditions... "

<BR>

Excuse me if I misunderstand you... "I have the d300 with MD10 battery pack, sb800 with gary fong lightsphere. I understand that you want to use flash, isn`t it? With a SB800 at less than 6 feet, you can shoot at any aperture you like. ASA 200, 16mm lens at f22. With an hyperfocal at 0.58 meters you`ll have almost from the lens cap up to the moon in focus. Don`t tell me that diffraction will be then a problem. Am I missing something? <BR>

*******************<BR><BR>

 

Yes, I am not trying to simply expose my subject. The environment at these raves is no ambient light but a lot of very directional lights (Lasers...etc). When I take photos, I am trying to capture the environment and not just a portrait of people with a black background. To do this, I have to slightly drag the shutter...but then by doing this I get smudged photos because everyone is constantly dancing around. This is why I shoot with a very high ISO and f/2.8 so I can achieve a fast enough shutter speed to freeze their movement but still be able to expose the background directional lights.

<BR><BR>

Let me show you some examples of the photos I took last night:<BR><BR>

 

<img src="http://web0.plurspace.com/images/misc/DSC_1537.jpg" border=0></a>

<BR><BR><img src="http://web0.plurspace.com/images/misc/DSC_1352.jpg" border=0></a>

<BR><BR><img src="http://web0.plurspace.com/images/misc/DSC_1763.jpg" border=0></a>

<BR><BR><img src="http://web0.plurspace.com/images/misc/DSC_2446.jpg" border=0></a>

<BR><BR>

 

As you can see from those above, there isn't really much ambiant lighting. Some moments there is a little more light than others (such as the picture of the blonde girl above), but thats also because I am effectively dragging my shutter (not technically since I have such a high ISO and the lens is wide-open..but relative to the settings on the camera, I am dragging the shutter which helps me expose or even sometimes overexpose the background to capture or create an environment).

<BR><BR>

<B>Jose Angel</B>, as for your response, this picture below is an example of what it looks like when try something like you suggested. You can see I totally lose the background. Well, actually, not lose it. This picture below very accurately depicts what it looks like at the raves...there is literally almost NO light at all (except for the chaotic random lasers flying around)

 

<BR><BR>

<img src="http://web0.plurspace.com/images/misc/DSC_2658.jpg" border=0></a>

<BR><BR>

 

Just to give you guys an idea about what I am talking about.

<BR><BR>

In response to this suggestion:

<BR><BR>

"Just thought I'd add my pennyworth to this ...As pointed out by Robert Budding above, the Hyperfocal at f2 is 21ft. However at that distance with the SB-800s power and an ISO of 800, you could easily afford f5.6. there the HFD is just 7.5 ft"

<BR><BR>

Here is a photo that gives you an idea of why that doesn't work. I shot this event last weekend up in san francisco - 15,000 in attendance.

<BR><BR>

 

<img src="http://web0.plurspace.com/images/misc/DSC_0376.jpg" border=0></a>

<BR><BR>

 

I am in the middle of that crowd shooting pictures and if I can push and squeeze just 1 or 2 feet of space between my camera and the subjects, Im lucky! Its really a crazy environment to shoot and has very specific requirements. I cannot set the focus on my fisheye to infinity because the first several feet from the lens will be out of focus. This works great for big crowd shots, but fails miserably for up-close and in-their-face shots because they will all be out of focus. And the wide-angle fisheye is needed because since I am packed in so tight in there and when someone sees me they insist I squeeze in all 9 of their friends into the picture when im standing 1.5 feet away from them....this wide-angle lens is a must. Many times I have to put the camera over and behind my head to get the shot because im just too close.

<BR><BR>

 

************ <BR>

If you can see nothing through the view finder, tape a mini-maglight (securely!) to the side of the 800 axial to the lens axis. Aim the camera simply by looking where the maglight is pointing. If you want a really 'funky' set up you could make a simple rig with 4 maglights mounted on the lens barrel, each one aiming at a separate corner of the FOV, I guess (big guess) these are angled out at about 45 degrees for a 16mm. I made a similar set up with 4 very small laser pointers so I could aim the camera accurately for IR with an R72 on the front (thus black viewfinder).<BR>

***************

<BR><BR>

That's simply genious :-)

 

[mike_halliwell]

Why thank you Gabriel, maybe I should pop off to the PATENT OFFICE sharpish!! The laser-pointers fitted onto a 58mm step-up ring, luckily I used a lens that used Internal focussing or I could have produced my own laser light-show!. Small ones about 8mm long and 4mm diameter can be bought from http://www.roithner-laser.com/ They can project cross-hairs and lines as well as dots if that helps!

[tom_barrance]

Only problem I can see is that pointing lasers at people whose eyes are dilated (both

because of the darkness and the drugs) could cause eye injuries.

[moses_sparks]

Ilkka,

 

Have you personally verified that the D3 firmware upgrade corrects this issue?

 

I'm aware of that upgrade but avoided it up till now because the first one actually created a new problem for some owners, where some raw files in a high speed burst sequence would be corrupted.

 

Nikon subsequently pulled that upgrade, fixed the corruption problem, and put out a new upgrade.

 

I still haven't upgraded because I've been through this before...just as all new cameras will inevitably have a few bugs when they are first released, the same thing can happen with firmware upgrades.

 

Both my bodies are working just fine so I wanted to give this some time before installing the upgrade, BUT, if it fixes this problem it would be worthwhile.

 

As you probably know, Nikon (and Canon) both routinely issue firmware upgrades that correct or enhance functions which they make public, but also address problems they DO NOT make public or even acknowledge. You don't get "full disclosure" from these guys, they would rather quietly include a bug fix in a firmware upgrade than announce it.

 

If it's only for the D3 it wouldn't help Gabriel, but it would sure simplify my life!

 

Thanks.

[ilkka_nissila]

I have no lenses wider than 24mm for FX so I don't think I can make a useful test of this feature. But I have shot several thousand exposures with the new firmware and have encountered no bugs and definitely no corrupted files. I think it is safe to install it as long as you follow the instructions to the letter. Good luck with this and I hope it solves the problem for your D3. For me, the firmware upgrade is important as I had a hard time seeing the focus indictors with the original firmware and that was a real pain. Now they can be adjusted to be brighter! :-)

 

I would hope a similar firmware upgrade eventually becomes available for the D300, but have no information about it.

[jose_angel]

Gabriel, I see. I was thinking in a place near to hell. It looks that the only way to get what you want is to have what you are asking for. As it seems to me that you`ll continue using a D300 for the time being, I`d suggest you to go for a second hand 18mm lens (just slightly longer than your fisheye on a D300) and to hold with it. It will give you a much wider look that the images you provide (althought I think you want to go much wider).

 

We want a D300 software upgrade!

[moses_sparks]

Well, I guess for my situation at least, I will install the new firmware and see if it corrects this AF assist problem. That will be very interesting if it does, because I discussed this with Nikon Technical Service, and they assured me this was inherent in the camera's design.

 

Their explanation as to why it worked fine with every previous camera was that "it never should have, but somehow it did...?

 

They finally "corrected" the flash to camera interface in the D3 and D300 so that it only provides AF assist in the 24-105mm range as stated in the SB800 manual".

 

I asked if they could "break" my D3's to work the same as my D2X...they didn't find that as funny as I did :)

[josefkissinger]

I just sold my 5D so I could get better flash results from Nikon as I heard they were far superior when in comes to flash. It turns out they were right. Canon flash sucks. Its extremely inconsistent. I definitely would dissuade you from going that route if you plan to use flash. I had a Canon 5D with the new 580 ex II. Crap. Now I have the D300 and the SB-800. Much better. However as far as the camera goes, the D300 is crap compared to the 5D when it comes to image quality. Apparently Nikon shooters don't care about image quality unless they just switched to Nikon from Canon after the release of the D3. I am saving up for a D3, which will give me quality and excellent flash. The best of both worlds. For now im stuck with the D300. When I say quality I mean low noise. Only large sensor cameras (D3, 5D, 1Ds) can give you quality above 200 ISO because their pixels are so much bigger. For web stuff, you can get away with shooting at 1600 ISO on a D300, but certainly not if you want to print anything at that speed. Im digressing. My point is, don't get a Canon if you use flash, and only use the D300 in limbo until you can afford a D3 unless you are only publishing on the web.

 

josefkissinger.com

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>Apparently Nikon shooters don't care about image quality</i>

<p>

Are you trying to be inflammatory?

<p>

We do care about image quality, but in my case 8k is way too much money to pay for a camera, and the 5D viewfinder is unuseable to me. If you take a crop camera then there was no real disadvantage to using a Nikon.

<p>

Since I believe this rapid development phase of digital capture is relatively short, we always knew Nikon would eventually be competitive in the high end also. The few years we had to spend without a full-frame Nikon body are quickly forgotten. Nikon has several advantages .. not just the D3, but compatibility with manual focus lenses with full metering (including the excellent Zeiss ZF lenses), a great flash system, high-eyepoint viewfinders (so we can see what we shoot), excellent image processing, and some specialty lenses such as the 105 VR, the 200-400/4, the 14-24/2.8 etc.

<p>

Also, as far as the crop bodies go, a lot of people actually think the D300 has great image quality. I haven't used it personally but I've seen excellent work done with it and the previous generation of Nikon DSLR bodies.

[oskar_ojala]

I think Mike's suggestion is the best, along with hoping for a firmware upgrade. That said, I would still consider the prefocusing route, I've done it with a IR filter on my lens and it worked. You know that your subject is 1.5 feet away from you, that's great! Prefocus to 1.5 feet and see how it goes. I haven't done rave photography, so it's hard to see why it wouldn't work at least part of the time.

 

Just to test this out, I used my 18-70, D300 and SB-600. The AF illuminator goes on happily at 18 mm when the AF is in S mode (I'm too lazy to look in the manuals whether this can be changed, since I currently don't need the feature that much). In very dark conditions, the AF operation with the illuminator is far from instantaneous, which is why prefocusing is of some interest. However, I'm not saying it's the magic bullet -- I don't currently photograph in similar conditions as you -- just something worth keeping in mind.

[gabriel_afana]

"Why thank you Gabriel, maybe I should pop off to the PATENT OFFICE sharpish!! "

Actually not a bad idea :-P Some kinda ring that goes around the lens and creates a framing box... nice :-)

 

 

"luckily I used a lens that used Internal focussing or I could have produced my own laser light-show"

 

HAHAHAHA, thats the funniest thing I've read all week :-P!!! Hell, I really should do that! I'd have EVERYONE coming up to watch, then they would want their picture taken! haha, really, I think I might try something like that for (parden me) "shits and giggles"

 

"Only problem I can see is that pointing lasers at people whose eyes are dilated (both because of the darkness and the drugs) could cause eye injuries."

 

Exactly..I might try just high-powered LEDs

 

"Have you personally verified that the D3 firmware upgrade corrects this issue? "

I haven't tested because I dont have a D3, but its listed as one of the updates in the firmware.

 

" For now im stuck with the D300. When I say quality I mean low noise. Only large sensor cameras (D3, 5D, 1Ds) can give you quality above 200 ISO because their pixels are so much bigger. "

 

For me, I am all about high ISO (1600-3200). I went to the D300 from my D70/D80 primarily because of the noise problem (Wow...the D70 is a noise-machine!!!! haha :-) Full frame would be great for me too because it can help me get wider, but there is no way I'd take a D3 to a rave. This is why I was thinking about the 5D....but im also heavily reliant on the flash...so i'd prefer to find a work-around for now and stick with nikon. (also, all the guys at these events that shoot...they use canon. They say Nikon blows out skin tones. Whatever...I like my D300 - I'd love it if I can get it to work 100%)

 

 

"For web stuff, you can get away with shooting at 1600 ISO on a D300, but certainly not if you want to print anything at that speed. Im digressing. My point is, don't get a Canon if you use flash, and only use the D300 in limbo until you can afford a D3 unless you are only publishing on the web. "

 

Yup, this is all web-only. I actually have received a lot of crap from my local camera shops because I shoot on the lowest resolution on the camera (2.5MP). I know I know!!! Its just that all photos are reduced to 600x400 anyways so shooting lower resolution allows me to get more photos on my aging 2GB memory card. Im gonna buy some new ones, but haven't yet. I really need to because I wouldn't mind shooting higher-res photos, but I need big cards and they are expensive. On saturday, I shot 1305 photos that night :-/

 

"I would still consider the prefocusing route, I've done it with a IR filter on my lens and it worked"

 

Its just tough because I am constantly moving between inches from the people to feet - and all are usually less than 4-5 max so this puts me all over the place in the exact spot where I need precise focusing (especially with f/2.8). I can try though and indeed I will :-) But what did you mean about the IR filter? I dont get that part...what does it have to do with manually focusing?

[joseph_wisniewski]

Gabriel, I'd be willing to place a small wager that there will soon be a D300 firmware upgrade to fix it, just like the D3 firmware did. What firmware version do you currently have?

 

Until that time, the D300 will focus at distances of a about 6 feet by the light of a red LED flashlight. Don't get a white LED flashlight, the red ones do not affect dark adapted vision and do not cause noticeable pain to zombie animal species such as ravers and astronomers. You can get some that take three AAA batteries and will run 12 hours straight. Rubberband it to the flash, turn it on, and forget about it. The ravers will think it's part of the light show. If you move the camera back and forth just right, some of them will even fall over for you.

 

Now, if you don't mind me asking, how on God's green earth do you manage to make any money shooting ravers? Where do you live, Amsterdam? I can't picture this paying off in LA or New York, let alone my own Detroit.

[moses_sparks]

Well, I just checked Nikon USA's site and the newest D3 firmware update does indeed list the AF assist as one of the corrections...nice!

 

I'll be downloading that tonight.

 

I'm posting here because I think Joseph is probably correct, since it was identified and fixed on the D3 it would make sense that there would be an update for the D300 too. Hopefully that will resolve this problem for Gabriel.

 

Of course this is Nikon we're talking about, so who knows when it will happen.

 

I will sign off with this last editorial comment...

 

I have been shooting Nikons professionally for more years than I care to admit, and for the most part I have always believed that they made the best products available for my needs. The lenses and flash systems never had a real equivalent from Canon, nor did the cameras themselves IMHO. Sensors were another story, and like many pros I came very close to changing systems when I saw the huge advantage Canon had for low light-high ISO work, something I do an awful lot of.

 

The D3 and the fantastic new lenses (14-24 and 24-70) arrived just in time for me, and I am very excited about the new capabilities they have brought to my work.

 

But having said that, I feel compelled to say that Nikon is absolutely the most mysterious company on the planet as far as understanding what they are doing and why! This whole AF assist thing is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. The issue of their raw converter, Capture NX, is another. Leave it to Nikon to design and build the absolute best DSLR seen to date, and then force hordes of it's users to go to a third party solution by offering what is arguably the worst user interface ever conceived in a software program.

 

Purely my views of course, your mileage may vary. Sorry for the tangent.

 

The firmware is good news, I will take my happy endings where I can get them :)

[gabriel_afana]

"Gabriel, I'd be willing to place a small wager that there will soon be a D300 firmware upgrade to fix it, just like the D3 firmware did. What firmware version do you currently have? "

 

I hope! I have the latest version on the site (Dont remeber off hand, but its the most up-to-date version on the site)

 

"Until that time, the D300 will focus at distances of a about 6 feet by the light of a red LED flashlight. Don't get a white LED flashlight, the red ones do not affect dark adapted vision and do not cause noticeable pain to zombie animal species such as ravers and astronomers. You can get some that take three AAA batteries and will run 12 hours straight. Rubberband it to the flash, turn it on, and forget about it."

 

Your talking about those high-power headset lights? I know those put out a lot of power and take 2-3 AAA batteries and I could easily strap it to my flash. Only problem is I do not want to be turning it on/off when I shoot. If I did leave it on, would the powerful red have much effect on the photo? If not, im doin it...

 

"The ravers will think it's part of the light show. If you move the camera back and forth just right, some of them will even fall over for you. "

 

hahahahahaha....Nice :-P

 

"Now, if you don't mind me asking, how on God's green earth do you manage to make any money shooting ravers? Where do you live, Amsterdam? I can't picture this paying off in LA or New York, let alone my own Detroit."

 

I live in Southern California - the scene is HUGE here. As you can see from that one photo, 15,000 people paying $80-$100/ticket is big money. Plus $4 for a bottle of water and when they are drugged up, they are consuming bottle after bottle after bottle of water. Of course I dont get a penny of that!

 

Where we make money (or plan to make money since we just started 3 months ago), is we own a website that is like a myspace but its dedicated to ravers. In the 3 months since we've started, we've gotten over 12,000 members - most in SoCal. I go to these events every weekend (usually friday and saturday night) and shoot pictures. In doing so, I tell them to go to the website. They have to signup to get their photos and onced signed up, they realize they love the website and stay forever and ever and ever....THE END :-)

 

haha, but really the photography is an indirect way to make money. The real money comes from advertising on the site (we did over 250k hits on the site in one day last week :-) and from throwing our own events. The photography is just a way to get people to become part of the site and so far its working well.

 

Especially when I have my D300 with MD10 battery pack, SB800 with the gary fong lightsphere and a big fat lens on it, people are like "holy crap, you can cure cancer with that thing!!" because it looks so big and "wow". They can't imagine that camera not taking awsome photos so they are always so excited to come and pose for me. The only bad part is I am still trying so hard to learn all the new little things about the D300 and figure out exactly how to use it.....

 

There is NOTHING worse than taking a photo of someone, it not coming out....trying again and taking another photo....it not coming out. Then trying one last time in a desperate attempt of getting the picture to come out properly, and it doesn't work. Then walking away like "Awsome! Thanks! It will be on the website tomorrow!!" then they ask the killer question....

 

"CAN I SEE IT??"

 

OH CRAP! :-P