seancrane

<p>I shoot with a a D300 and a D700 and have a 17-35, 70-200 and 200-400. I always keep the 200-400 on the D300 and the wider lenses on the D700. If the light gets low and I need reach, I put the 200-400 on the D700 because of the great high ISO performance.</p>

<p>Dennis,<br /> The D700 absolutely and quite noticeably has less noise at higher ISOs than the D300 (regardless of what Ken Rockwell might say). As I stated earlier I am comfortable with the D300 up to 800 and the D700 up to 1600. At 800 on the D300 you start to see quite a bit of color noise (less than with the D200 but still quite noticeable depending on the exposure, although less grain than if shooting 800 speed film). With the D700 you see very little of this. The same shots are much smoother (I'd say the grain of 200 to 400 speed film). Now I'm not one of these examine the smallest detail kind of guys. I'm talking about a very noticeable difference to even the most untrained eye of side by side RAW files. I use both cameras regularly and often shoot the same scenes with both, as they are both always around my neck with different lenses on them. I love the D300 for the reasons stated and I love the D700 for the reasons stated. I don't even mind noise that much for certain types of shooting (wildlife in a dark forest). </p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8550203-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="450" />One thing I would consider for a two lens kit is to get a close up filter to screw onto the end of your longer lens. This immediately converts your lens into a macro. I shoot with Nikon but use a 77mm Canon close up filter that I screw onto the end of my 70-200 zoom whenever I want to get close to frogs, or plants or whatever else. This adds versatility and keeps things light without the added cost or weight of a dedicated macro. I just keep the filter in my pocket and pull it out whenever I see something like this attached frog.</p>

<p>Keith,<br>

Yes, the D300 does give extra reach (whether you want to call it narrower FOV or not). Both cameras are 12 megapixel (actually the D300 is 12.3 and the D700 is slightly less at 12.1) so it's not as if the D300 just crops off the extra FOV that the D700 captures. You end up with an image of the same (actually slightly more) megapixels that is much bigger in frame. Saying it just gives the "illusion of extra reach is almost like saying a 600mm lens just gives the illusion of extra reach over a 50mm lens. I say almost, because the perspective is the same with both cameras (spatial relationship of what you're shooting). A better example might be to say the D300 produces the magnification of a D700 with a 1.4 teleconverter attached. Of course, it sounds like extra magnification isn't your goal, so by all means, I'd get the D700. It 's a great camera.</p>

<p>Hey Keith,<br>

I used to shoot with a D200 and got a D700 when they first came out. I shoot mostly wildlife and what I found was that I really missed the extra reach provided by the crop factor of the DX camera (I don't own any DX lenses, I shoot with the 17-35, 70-200 and 200-400) but what I really liked was having my wide angles again, a true 17mm on the D700. What I also loved was the higher ISO capabilities -- no comparison between the D200 and the D700. What I ended up doing was trading in the D200 for a D300 and now I carry both the D300 and D700 wherever I go. I use the D300 with the longer lenses and the D700 with wide angle. The only time I put the 200-400 on the D700 is when light is low. I give up the reach, but have no problem pushing the ISO to 1600. I don't like to push the D300 past 800. The D300 is better than the D200 in high ISO/low light situations but the D700 is better than the D300. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that for what I shoot, the two camera definitely complement each other nicely. Each has it's strength over the other (D300 for reach, D700 for higher ISOs and wide angles). </p>

<p>Hey Matthijs,<br>

Not sure of IS, but I know that with Nikon VR you can go into the menus and change the amount of time that the VR stays engaged prior to releasing the shutter. I too, like to keep it engaged for a while and use the longest setting. </p>

<p>Hey Marlin,<br>

I shot with that same 80-200 for years before switching to the 70-200 VR version and have had no problems. In fact, the VR lens seems to focus a bit snappier than the 80-200 version, which I attributed to being a newer lens (this may or may not be true, but it certainly doesn't seem to focus any slower, track and zoom improperly or produce less sharp photos). Proper technique with VR requires that you engage the VR first for a beat by pressing the shutter halfway before firing. This is what I do anyway while acquiring focus on moving subjects. If shooting in continuous frames per second mode, the VR stays engaged throughout the range of shots while continuing to track the subject. As I stated earlier in this thread, VR isn't as important to certain styles of shooting but to others (like what I do with wildlife where a tripod isn't always practical and low light situations are often the norm) it makes all the difference in the world. And in situations where you don't need it you can just turn it off. The bokeh of this lens also seems to beat the older non VR versions, but that's another story.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8330633-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="451" />For me, VR has been revolutionary to the way I shoot. I know certain people think it blasphemous not to use a tripod and I used to lug one through the forest, up mountains, etc. I shoot almost exclusively wildlife. I still carry a tripod for landscape work and for things like tree frogs in daylight that aren't going anywhere, but when hiking through a rainforest searching for monkeys, I get many, many more keepers now with VR. Finding a subject, then putting the tripod down, composing and shooting just takes too long. Yes, if the subject is moving and you're shooting at a slower shutter speed you're still going to get motion blur. But you'll eliminate (or at least reduce) blur from camera movement in your hand. And yes, the VR does help when shooting at shutter speeds faster than 1/125th or 1/250th of a second. Last week I was in Uganda hiking through the jungle with my Nikon 200-400 with VR. I came across a L'Hoest monkey sitting in a tree and quickly framed a shot and tripped the shutter. Wide open I only had enough light for a 1/15 of a second shutter and the shot came out extremely sharp, the only blur being from the monkey's hand as he was putting a leaf in his mouth. And that's with the D300, so effectively a 600mm shot at 1/15 of a second and good sharpness. Attached is a parrot snake shot at 1/30th of a second. Yes, the snake had to freeze for that 1/30th of a second. He did, and I got the shot. Very little chance of getting the shot if I had to set up a tripod then compose and shoot. I've read many top pro wildlife guys who say that they don't carry a tripod much anymore (Andy Rouse comes to mind). Then again, I'm talking about photographing animals while hiking through the woods. For other types of shooting, the VR might not be as useful. <br>

As to the issue of using VR on tripod, maybe the Nikon lenses are different, but it works great with the tripod too. The instruction manual of the 200-400 says to leave it on. I also use the 70-200 VR with good results. <br>

As for any negatives, I don't see any. I used to use the Nikon 80-200, now the 70-200 VR and I don't see any fall off in image quality.</p>

<p>Jeffrey, I used to shoot with a D200 and sold it to buy the D700. I don't have any DX lenses so that's not a concern (I use Nikon 17-35 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and 200-400 f4) I love the D700 but missed the reach for wildlife (mostly what I shoot) so I picked up a D300 (very similar to the D200 but better higher ISO quality and better autofocus). Now I carry both the D700 and D300 whenever I go shooting. I find that I actually use the D300 more because reach is usually a primary concern (my 400 becomes a 600). If the light is low, I'll put the longer lens on the D700 because it handles low light better. I'll go to ISO 1600 on the D700 without much concern and to ISO 800 on the D300. With the D200 I didn't like to shoot above ISO 400. The noise seems different, as well, with the newer cameras. With the D200 there was more color in the noise, with the D300 and D700 there's less color and it more resembles film grain (at least to me). The autofocus also, seems much crisper in the D300 and D700 and it's easier for me to track birds in flight, etc. Of course, I absolutely love that my 17-35 is a true 17-35 again on the D700 (I originally had this lens with an f100 film camera). Anyway, to answer your question, yes, I'd hold onto the D200 and use it when you need more reach. Use the D700 for everything else.</p>

<p>Another nice thing about shooting in a zoo is that it's great practice for when you are in the wild because you really learn how to be aware of the whole frame. In a zoo you're constantly checking all edges of the frame for possible man-made distractions, much like you should always be checking for any kind of background distractions. You also learn to rely on shallow depth of field to blur out any unnatural background and really simplify your composition. When you have a great background in the wild that really shows the animals environment, by all means show it (to me these are the best kind of wildlife shots) but more often than not you're dealing with distracting branches, etc. Shoot often enough in zoos and it'll make you better for when you're really out there. Attached is a shot of a wolf I took in a drive through zoo called Bear Country U.S.A. in South Dakota. Behind the wolf there were some fence posts and other distractions which I blurred out of the scene and cropped around.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8590640-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="451" /></p>

<p>I used to do this a lot in one exposure (if you consider a double exposure one exposure) when I shot slides. At least it was only one slide captured in camera. I haven't tried it since I went to digital because it's easier to composite in photoshop. The general rule was to shoot the moon first at f/16 and a shutter speed equal to that of your film speed. This ensures that the only thing captured on film is the moon, leaving everything around it unexposed. You just have to be aware of where the moon is on the frame, then recompose for the spider or whatever the case may be and take the second exposure positioning the spider somewhere in the frame other than where the moon is. I would usually shoot the moon with a longer lens to increase its size, then put a wider lens on for whatever else it was I wanted in the rest of the frame, usually a landscape. Attached is a shot from my book, American Hydrant, where I used this technique. It's a pretty small image, but it's all I had on my computer at the moment. The moon was shot first at about 80mm, then the hydrant was shot at 17mm. But as someone above posted, it actually looks unnatural if both are in perfect focus so I blurred up the moon a bit in post processing.</p>

<p>I shoot Nikon, not Canon, but my 200-400mm zoom, along with my 70-200mm are perfect for this location. The metabolism of the bison are slowed down at this time of year and you can get closer than at other times of the year, although don't get too close as they can be dangerous animals. You should also see plenty of elk and coyote throughout the park and also bighorn, possibly fox and other creatures. In the past, I'd agree about the tripod, but not anymore with an IS lens. If you're shooting animals, they are likely to be moving so you'd have to shoot at around 125th second shutter or above anyway and with IS on you can get sharp results at that SS with a 400mm lens. With stationary animals, I shoot my 200-400mm handheld sometimes as slow as 1/30th of a second and get sharp results. A lot of pro wildlife shooters are using their tripods less and less these days because of ease of movement without one. Of course, if you're shooting landscapes in low light and small apertures, you're going to want that tripod.</p>

<p>Hey Michael,<br>

All those focal lengths can be good for landscapes. Traditionally, the wider the better but sometimes you need a longer focal length depending upon the scene. Maybe you're trying to record a distant peak or a dall sheep climbing a ridge. You seem pretty well covered to me, but if you wanted to add a lens, I'd go with something in the 18 mm range that would be useful in photographing beautiful scenics with some interesting foreground element. If you're using a DX format camera you might want to go even wider. Sigma makes a good wide angle zoom from 10mm to 20mm which becomes a 15 to 30mm with DX sensors. The macro will be very useful in Alaska for all sorts of closeups of flowers and other small stuff.</p>

I own both cameras and use both regularly. I used to use a D200 (I shoot mostly wildlife/nature). I upgraded to the D700

and loved it's high ISO capabilities and the fact that my 17-35mm was back to being a great wide angle zoom. But all of

a sudden my 600mm lens, which I had gotten used to as a 900 on the D200 was back to a 600. At the same time I

traded in my old manual 600mm f5.6 for a 200-400 zoom, losing even more focal length. I ended up picking up a D300 to

use as a backup to the D700 and to use for smaller birds and other situation where I need more reach. What I found,

however, is that I shoot much more often with the D300 because I'm always seeming to need more reach. The D300 is

acceptable to me up to 800 ISO (if the lighting conditions are right). If I need to go up to 1600, I switch to the D700 even

if I need the extra reach. With plenty of good light, I almost always use the D300 when I'm shooting with telephoto lenses

at 200 ISO. If the situation calls for wide angle, it's the D700 regardless of light. I know you don't want to get both

cameras, so I guess my bottom line advice would be to get the D300 if you need the reach.

Sorry, for some reason, the site is not allowing me to upload at this time.

Here's the photo.

Hey Oleksander,

 

A great place to see them is in the Okefenokee Swamp that straddles the Georgia/Florida border. At the national wildlife

refuge in southern Georgia you can rent canoes and observe cranes at a very close distance (and also plenty of alligators).

Attached is a shot I took there years ago at about 200mm. There are also some other shots in my photo.net portfolio from

Okefenokee. Good luck.

I know there are tons of questions asked and answered on this lens. But this isn't another vs. the 300 2.8 or the 500 f4 question. For about

eight years now my wildlife long lens has been an old 600mm 5.6 ED manual focus nikon that I picked up used. This lens is very sharp

and has given me many nice shots over the years (see seancrane.com and pretty much everything that's not wide angle or out of range of

my 80/70-200 lenses). Problem is, birds pretty much have to be perched and bigger wildlife has to stop long enough to pose to get focus.

Occasionally I've been able to get a bird in flight or a running mammal, but it's more luck than anything else. I've decided to buy the 200-

400 for many reasons that have already been covered. My question is (if by chance anyone has had experience with both of these lenses)

how the image quality compares when I put the TC 1.4 on the 200-400. I know that conventional wisdom says the prime should be sharper,

especially with a TC on the zoom, but this is an older lens. Have the optics improved in the past 20 years so that the IQ should be

comparable (I realize that with AF I'll get more keepers, but I'm talking all things equal -- 560mm with TC 1.4 on the zoom and no VR,

mounted on a sturdy tripod using good technique to get a stationary animal vs. the 600? Thanks.

I also use the Really Right Stuff B-87B bracket. I do a lot of macro/nocturnal work with this setup and two Nikon SB-800 flash units. Of course, this presumes that you use arca swiss style plates.

I've been considering ditching the plastic bags and purchasing one of the Aqua

Tech Sport Shield rain covers for shooting in rainforests. I basically use three

lenses (17-35mm, 80-200mm, and Nikon's old 600mm f5.6 manual). Being a 5.6, the

600 is about half the size of most 600's but still pretty long. Do I need two

different sizes of Sport Sheild -- one for the 600 and another for the shorter

80-200, or will the one large size (SS-600) suffice for the 80-200 as well. I'd

imagine you can scrunch up the excess material for a shorter lens? And also,

will I be able to operate the manual focus on the barrel of the 600? I notice

that these things have a "glove" to put your hand through to operate the

camera's controls, but it looks like there might only be access to the camera

body. Thanks.

Perhaps each application works differnetly on different computers, but Vuescan set at

the exact settings as the Minolta software works way faster on my machine.

I've been using both the Minolta software and Vuescan with the G5 and Panther.

Occasionally the Minolta software (latest version downloaded from the Minolta

website) freezes up and gives me that error message you mentioned. Quitting and

restarting the application sometimes fixes the problem and sometimes I've had to

restart the computer. I've had no problems with Vuescan after a 100 or so scans.

What I meant was that ICE is what takes time. 15 minutes at full resolution 1x and it

goes up from there. I scan full res without ICE at 4x sampling and it takes about 3

minutes per scan.

I have the Minolta 5400 and have been pleased with it. The scan

times that people are reporting of 15 minutes are only if you use

digital ICE and 16x sampling. I prefer not to use the digital ICE,

and clean up dust in Photoshop. For me, this is a much quicker

way to go, and besides, the ICE softens the image a bit. I

suppose if I had a badly damaged/dirty slide I might use ICE. As

for the multi sampling, I use it, but only 4x. I haven't noticed any

difference between 4 and 16x other than a longer scan time.

Some people have even reported that using 16x multi sampling

pulls more noise out of the shadows. I haven't noticed this.

Before buying the 5400 I used a Minolta Scan Elite for about 3

years. I had no problems with it and the build quality seemed

quite good. My scans with the Elite were faster, but then I was

scanning at 2820 rather than 5400 ppi. My camera gear is also

all Nikon. The scanner brand makes no difference. I decided on

the Minolta scanner over the Nikon because of the performance

and quality of my previous Minolta scanner, the availabilty of the

units, and the price. I have definitely seen many more positive

reviews of the 5400 than negative ones.

I've been testing many papers with the 2200 and prefer the Ilford Galerie Smooth

Pearl to the Epson Luster because of its heavier weight. There is only a minimal

amount of bronzing with both of these papers. For glossy papers I've found that the

Pictorico Photo Gallery Glossy paper exhibits the least bronzing. Epson's Professional

Glossy Paper (not to be confused with the Premium Glossy Photo Paper) also performs

well and exhibits almost no bronzing. It is a glossy paper but has a bit of a texture to

the surface. It is also hard to find and only comes in 13 x 19 inch sheets.