john_mallery

October 28, 2012

I also find it difficult to make sharp images at 80 meters and beyond. Sometimes the images are sharp and sometimes

not. I always use a tripod.

Does adjusting the micro focus in camera to make close focus accurate change infinity focus?

Some of the relevant variables:

Focus accuracy

Focus reproducibility

Tracking accuracy

Camera motion

Shutter speed

VR on or off?

Subject motion

Lens optics

Atmosphere

maljo

January 30, 2012

600,000 images in Aperture 3. Also have Lightroom 3/4beta, latest PSCS, Nikon Capture NX2. Have tried DxO and Phase 1 Capture 1. All give good results. I like A3 the best. I like the way it works and I like the RAW processing results. It really does a nice job.

November 5, 2011

Higher prices decrease sales.

November 5, 2011

Send it to Nikon.

You want your camera working perfectly. Other things inside might be damaged.

I have slipped on wet rocks also and wrecked a 24-70 f2.8 and bent the lens mount on a D3X.

We rocks are very tricky! I feel lucky my camera was injured and I was not.

maljo

November 5, 2011

For me: shutter speed takes precedence over aperture. I try to keep the shutter speed at 1/1000 sec or faster for birds in flight.

Equally important is keeping the focus reticule on the eyes.

Depth of field for D300S at 50 ft: f4 = 0.47 feet and f16 = 1.89 feet with 500 mm lens.

Not a big difference in depth of field, but an enormous ( 16 x ) difference in shutter speed.

I agree with you; sometimes I see 500 mm bird in flight photo at f22 and 1/60 sec and I wonder what the photographer was thinking. I think sometimes by chance those images turn out sharp.

maljo

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

September 21, 2011

Nikon 1 is not for me. There is probably a group out there that will like it,

those with P and Shoots who want to change lenses.

I was hoping for a Fuji X100 type camera with interchangeable lenses, full frame sensor,

excellent ergonomics, excellent auto-focus. I think the days of the mirror box are now

numbered. It won't go away quickly, but it will go away; we don't need it anymore.

The future holds smaller, lighter cameras than the D3X with equal or better image quality that

use our current lenses. That's what I want.

September 13, 2011

I might use JPG if running out of card space, perhaps. But, basically I always use RAW.

A polarizer decreases shutter speed because it decreases light. I don't use them for sports photography, but love them for landscapes.

JPG images are usually quite good, just less flexible c/w RAW.

August 9, 2011

All photos are works of art, just like all drawings.

Art is the end result of a creative process.

But, some works of art are better than others.

maljo

August 7, 2011

The 300 f4 is the best lightweight wildlife lens, in my opinion. I'm not a fan of the 80-400 zoom; I gave mine away years ago: too slow to focus, not all that sharp. The 300 f4, on the other hand, is one of Nikon's jewels, very sharp and contrasty. When I want to travel light, the 300/4 is what I take ( for example backpacking ).

I am putting together a trip to Alaska for August 2012 and am taking:

Nikon D3X, D300S, 500 f4VR, 70-200f f2.8VR, 24-70 f2.8, 14-24 f2.8, 105 macro. I have hiked all over the west with this load and, while heavy, it's not too heavy. In bear and moose country, I think a 500 f4 is essential equipment.

Have a great trip, maljo

August 3, 2011

Detail lost to diffraction cannot be recovered with sharpening.

Just look at the difference between the bricks on the lower part of the frame.

Sharpening does not reverse the effects of diffraction.

maljo

August 1, 2011

1:1 would consider essential. I wouldn't but a macro lens without that capability.

maljo

July 29, 2011

You may have another revelation coming: once the newness wears off, the new

camera is just a tool to get a job done, and photography returns to light, composition and

technique, and the camera fades into the background as your fingers and mind control it almost

automatically.

maljo

July 26, 2011

Use both FX ( Nikon D3X ) and DX ( Nikon D300S ).

I like them both, but could be happy with just DX.

I would not recommend switching to FX unless one has a very specific reason to do so.

maljo

July 15, 2011

I wouldn't buy any DX prime. I'm sticking with FX lenses.

July 14, 2011

Banff (Jasper and the Canadian Rockies)

Southern Utah (Arches to Zion)

New England Fall Color

Yellowstone National Park

Yosemite and the High Sierra

Of course there are thousands of fantastic places to photograph around the world. These are my favorites.

maljo

July 12, 2011

Here's an image,

maljo

July 12, 2011

Lot's of interesting opinions here.

Jay Maisel often uses a 70-300 zoom and teaches a five day workshop in street photography in New York City (only $5000 for those who are interested. These inexpensive workshops sell out early!).

Once you engage the subject, it becomes a portrait rather than a candid photograph, in my opinion. I would say either way has merit.

I find street photography to be one of the most interesting and enjoyable branches of photography, both for the photographer and viewer. Guys, keep shooting!

maljo

July 12, 2011

I have been to Southern Utah about 15 times in the last 20 years; I love the place.

Of what you have, I would bring the 16-85 and 10-24. There are lots of wide angle landscapes, which means compositions with strong foregrounds and backgrounds: arches, ruins, slot canyons, petroglyphs, cliffs, waterfalls. You might see some wildlife ( coyotes, antelope, desert big horn sheep, wild horses ), but not likely enough to carry the 80-400 ( a lens I don't like much anyway ).

I would suggest a Gitzo 2542 series tripod with a Acratech ball head; light weight and sturdy.

I am always out at sunrise and sunset, so I plan the family meals accordingly.

Have fun and be sure to post a few photos,

maljo

July 12, 2011

I like the D300s but I want better high ISO performance for wildlife. I'd take a D400 with 16 or more MP and improved high ISO noise.

I like the D3X (love it, actually), but want a clean sensor.

AF could be improved in all current Nikons.

Bring them on, Nikon!

April 26, 2011

World class gardens:

Huntington Library, Gallery and Gardens, in Pasadena

Conservatory of Flowers and Strybring Arboretum, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco

Also: UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, LA County Arboretum, Cal State Fullerton, Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens, Getty Center Gardens in LA.

The entire state is practically a botanical garden. Lots of colorful things grow here.

Have fun, maljo

April 19, 2009

RAW gives a little more flexibility. When I look at photos I took in Europe six years

ago I so wish I had shot RAW and not JPG. Lots of them could be tweaked a bit

to improve the color, white balance, exposure. I love RAW. Haven't shot a JPG in two years.

Even at bike races where I'm shooting 3,000 images in a day, I do all RAW.

Give yourself an opportunity to be the best photographer you can be. Keep the door open for a little more adjustment

headroom, perhaps more dynamic range, better color balance. Aperture or Lightroom really make it easy to

work in RAW.

April 4, 2009

A macro lens is very helpful for flower photography, although

almost any lens will work. Extension tubes and close up filters

let you get close with any lens. Long lens give a nice perspective.

I recommend Nikon's 105 f2.8 VR macro.

April 4, 2009

Thanks for the review. I'm quite interested in a light weight wide angle.

The 14-24 is very good, but heavy.

Will you be able to try this lens on your D3X anytime soon? :)

I'm curious how the lens performs on FX cameras.

maljo

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by john_mallery