2Oceans

Shun, do you know if the Wimberley foot for the Nikon 500mm PF will also work on the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 G Vr II? I did not see one for the 70-200 on Wimberley 's web site. I noticed that Hejnar makes one that is longer for the 500mm PF. I tend to go with Wimberley most of the time but may try the Hejnar. Thanks

Mike, I use a Nikon Coolscan 4000 and bulk feeder that I have owned for years since 2003-4. I bought the bulk feeder and have used it for batch converting large sets of slides for family and friends and now use Vuescan software to run it. I think the Vuescan is quite acceptable and has a infrared filter to remove dust. The Coolscan 4000 and its younger brother the Coolscan 5000 that has a little higher dynamic range have not been made for over 10 years. The bulk feeder always has been very hands on and requires constant attention. I used a c cell battery to provide additional weight to push the slides into the feeder. The straight stick cardboard slides would feed most of the time but my experience with plastic slides was not so great. I have a colleague who purchased a Coolscan 5000 and bulk feeder to batch scan his family collection of several thousand slides and then sold it for the same price he paid for it. If I had a collection to scan or even just a few I would strongly consider the simple Nikon ES-1. With respect to resolution the tightest grained film that I know of is Fuji Provia followed closely by Velvia. I could print 13X19 prints from a scan I had made using the Coolscan 4000 and I was quite happy with the detail however digital sensors on DSLRs from the last 10 year surpass my scans. I imagine you might get slightly higher res scan with an Imacon Flextight or even more from a Heidelberg scanner at a ridiculous cost but the Nikon ES-1 might provide what you need using a modern DSLR. Dust will be a problem since you don’t have a built in software solution but you could probably establish a good cleaning methodology and workflow and you could do well. On resolution you have to be satisfied with the technology of the day. Galen Rowell passed in August of 2002 and I believe that he was still using film. I had the privilege of seeing a collection of his work at the San Diego Museum of Natural History in Balboa Park in 2006. The images were taken with lightweight Nikon 35mm film cameras sometimes using cheap zoom lenses stopped down or good quality fixed focal length wide angle lenses that Galen liked because they were light weight. They were 24 inches or larger as their smaller dimension and at the time I was disappointed at resolution of these large prints and could easily see the breakdown in detail but from a proper viewing distance they were just fine. Galen used high end scanning technology. I was shooting a Fuji S2 6MP res with 12 MP interpolation and a Nikon D2x 12 MP camera. Both were APC sensors that in my mind show very good resolution that I liked better than film. So I think you may be disappointed with the best resolution but on the other hand 35mm film can IMHO be scanned into satisfying images if you accept the limitation of film. I have. I have never used a Plustech or Pacific Image scanner but they may be all you need and also provide dust removal software to boot. I would hope that they may be better than my Coolscan 4000. I have no experience with flat bed scanners using 35mm slides. Stay frosty.

Ray, that’s it. Thanks

Ray, I just checked the Red River site and viewed a video that explained using the bottom path for thick media. I don’t think the 3880 had this option so glad to have learned from your post. Should have read the manual:)

Ray, I have been using Ilford Gold Fibre Silk for a while including other Baryta papers (Canson my favorite, Red River, Epson Legacy and Finestra) on my P800 and previously my 3880. I was not aware that top loading Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper will damage the printer over the long haul. Could you please elaborate. I top load all my papers so I have some concerns. As well the 96 lb Red River Pecos River Gloss is thick stuff that I use occasionally. It did not come with any warnings. I appreciate any guidance you can provide. I bought my P800 last fall and was torn between Canon vs Epson and chose to go with what I knew. So far it has not let me down. Mr. Rodriquez’s site is by far the best I have seen for explaining things and helped me sort out that my black ink dampers needed to be replaced. Good hunting.

John, I have a thin B&W 6 stop and a Marumi variable ND 10 stop both in 77mm and carry step up rings. I think that solid/single density filters are a better choice and are more even. The Marumi filter that is essentially a double polarizer was not cheap but even still my favorite filter manufacturer Singh-Ray makes a variable filter that cost twice as much. The single density filters come in a thinner mount though some of the variable filters are relatively thin. Brass rings are on all the B&W filters and even though I like brass better there are very few problems (no galling) with aluminum on plastic lenses. The single density filters can be pointed at the sky and evenly darken the image where as I have found uneven lighting with the variable filter that I understand is a problem with all variable filters. Many lenses these days have a 82mm or larger filter threads including my beloved Zeiss 15mm Distagon that is 95mm so $250 out the door for either a Nikon 95mm polarizer or a B&W 95mm ND. I think that many good filters have a slight color cast that can be controlled in post though you would expect better given the high cost. I use a Cokin P filter holder that will accommodate 82mm for my Singh-Ray and Hitech grads but have never tried a solid filter. It may be an affordable way to go. I don’t use the Fotodiox Wonderpana system but it will allow you to use a really fat lens like my Zeiss 15mm or the Nikon 14-24mm with large grad and ND filters. My primary use of ND is for waterfall photography but I can also use them to shoot in broad daylight with the aperture wide open to better control the background with a flash that will only sync to 250th. With waterfalls I tend to look for rivers and stream beds that give me a position that will allow me to control highlights. Good hunting.

Gary, The newer DSLRs are much cleaner than cameras from 15 years ago. I clean a lot less often now. That said I have spent a little money on cleaning gear starting with a Panovise that allows me to get good position on the sensor and an illuminated loop/headband magnifier that I wear rather than a hand held cylindrical loupe. Less than the price of a single professional cleaning done by someone else. I use a wet cleaner judiciously, not too wet, on dirty sensors using Eclipse on either PEC pads wrapped on an old copper hill paddle or sensor swabs. I usually finish things off with the articulated lens pen shown above. They are not expensive and I keep -two or three brand new ones. I have used a sensor sticky kit as well but have being using the articulated lens pen the last 7-8 years. I never reuse them. Like everyone I check my work visibly and with a lens stopped down shooting a white background and touch up as needed. Easy day.

Michael, The D500 and 500mm f5.6 are a great combination. Congratulations

Mark, I have a refurbished Fuji X100F that is a DX equivalent. It has a fixed lens and a leaf shutter that will allow me to crush sun light with a wide open aperture and a digital neutral density filter while at the same time shooting with a flash with an extremely quite mechanical shutter option at 4000th in broad day light. It has limitations but I am having a lot if fun with it using a remote flash. I have all I could wish for with Nikon DSLRs but think that mirrorless is inevitable. That said with my investment in Nikon DSLR glass I would hope for a level of compatibility with my expensive long glass before I move to Nikon mirrorless. I would love to have a dead silent camera with the equivalent of what Olympus calls Pro Capture to photograph Big Foot, Grover Krantz rest in peace. Only fully electronic cameras will meet that need. I hope Nikon will continue too satisfy my needs. I love the current system that I own. So while I am excited about the future and not too stuck in convention I am still waiting to see how Nikon evolves before I commit to a Nikon mirrorless system. Additionally the ergonomics of cameras that are too small will have to be addressed. There has always been a Nikon feel that I liked. My Fuji is small and lovable because I am still in the honeymoon period with it but I hope Nikon will come through with future designs that are larger with the kind of ergonomics that we usually associate with Nikon bodies. They can keep making small stuff but I cant imagine balancing a body the size of a pack of cigarettes on the end of a 600mm f4 lens. They would have to harden the body and post a large sign on the camera not to use the body while lifting the lens as well as move the location of or extend the tripod foot to balance things out. Sadly we may be close to the point where the future Nikon D6 is the evolutionary equivalent to the F6 that was at the end of a noble bloodline. Maybe there is something in the number 6, think about it. Finally the evolution of Nikon DSLRs has reminded me that there is always a waiting period. In the mid 2000s many were preparing to dump Nikon. The 2008 Beijing olympics where I saw a majority of black lenses at a major sporting event for he first time showed that Nikon could come through in a big way. So here’s hoping and waiting. Stay frosty.

We routinely trust single1/4 inch screws for Arca Swiss plates on camera plates and L brackets. The Wimberley plate for the 70-200 uses double screws but they do not attached to the collar. I think I have removed the foot 3 time since I owned the lens and it always felt tight. Tonight I disconnected the foot and then reinstalled the foot. I checked it’s a little while later and found it had slipped so I tightened it up. I guess I am running with scissors. So I will buy a Hejnar replacement plate and trust the 1/4X20 screw as I have with the camera bracket. attached to the collar directly

Shun, Thanks for sharing your misfortune so that we can learn from it as well as sharing the Back Country Gallery web site. I have the 70-200 vr AFS and mostly carry it in my hand or at the end of a tripod but sometimes by the foot. I always assumed that since things were tightened down that I was safe. My longer lenses have low profile Wimberley feet held in place with four screws. If I carry them attached to a tripod its with the lens and pods slung over my shoulder for short distances 100-200 yards. If I carry just the cameras and the lens I hold the camera with my hand and nestle the barrel of the lens in the crook of my elbow or I carry it by the foot for short distances. Kirk even makes a handle with an Arca Swiss clamp for this purpose. While I have been happy with the 70-200 for about nine years, the collar and Nikon foot design leaves something to be desired, the Kirk version looks like a variation of the Nikon foot so I didn’t bother with it. I use a Wimberley plate on the Nikon 70-200 foot. A common practice. Otherwise I use a very good Kirk foot with two points of contact on my 300 f4 AFS and Wimberley replacement feet on every long lens I have ever owned. And now probably on my 70-200. Does the Wimberley 500mm PF foot fit on the 70-200. I noticed that Wimberley did not list a dedicated foot for this lens but that Hejnar does. I think Nikon engineers have an age old history of doing a poor job of designing hoods, tripod collars and feet but hopefully in the future will take some cues from 3rd party lenses with integrated Arca Swiss feet but also from manufactures of third party plates and feet. Sometime we get lucky and Nikon accidentally does a good job with their foot/collar. The Tamron Arca foot collar I have on my Tamron 100-400 is too short to balance on a “side kick” action head so there his still work to be done. I miss my 500mm f4 in the worst way and have been recently ogling the 500mm PF. Stay frosty.

Michael, I think your D810 is a great camera. The only reason I upgraded from the D800e to a D850 was that the D800e was 7 years old and I felt that the 850 gave me a good one camera option. Clinically the D800e/D810 are plenty sharp. While the larger en-el18 batteries can be used in a gripped D500 or griped D800e. Unlike the D850 the D500 shoots just as fast ,10 fps , for without the grip. The D500 has great balance and is a perfect "speed" complement to your d810. I printed a 17x22 image from this camera and while I am dead certain the d850 would have shown more detail I was perfectly happy with 20 mp. We don't talk about it much but file handling if your using high rez cameras and shooting 2-3 thousand images a day can be daunting. The D500 file size is perfect. Stay frosty.

Michael I would go with # 2. Buy a refurbed or good used D500 if you have a need for speed and Bob's your uncle. In the future consider a good condition fixed focal length long lens and sturdy tripod and action head. I have a 600mm f4 that is fantastically sharp but greatly regret selling my 1st generation 500mm f4 afs that is the perfect carry on. Buying a fixed focal length long lens will really up your game . Good hunting.

Jason, It looks to me like your 3D color matrix meter is doing what it is supposed to. I typically use a three channel histogram because I believe it helps tell a better story, so that I will avoid clipping information.

Rutland, No one sees my gear or understands it so for there is little prestige. It’s for pure pleasure only. As an amateur I do not have to justify cost but photography for me is a creative outlet. I get to rub shoulder with interesting people. My friends who are professional have to justify every dime and as well have to shoot current models of recognizable brands such as Nikon and Hasselblad that will satisfy their clients until they have to move up to a newer model. I could say something about the condition of my friends gear because of all the use. I can afford what I want but I often buy used glass or a refurbed body and I drive a 2003 truck and continue to work after a first retirement because I love my non photographic field of work and I like the additional income for my camera addiction and trip. As far as depreciation the rules of the road changed when digital came along and bodies became obsolete much more rapidly. I have to accept that. I still shoot my old bodies. The flip side is that a young person can buy a d3400 or equivalent rebel with two lenses for less that the same price that would be a very basic and featureless film camera from 1995. That camera has image quality that will knock your socks off. My first autofocus camera after using an F2As and a Nikkormatt for many years was a N70 film body for $575. In order to check depth of field I would unlock the lens and rotate it clockwise and after checking then rotate it back until it locked back on. Forget mirror lock up. My D2x is worth a couple hundred bucks but I had the time of my life with it underwater. I enjoy using and I am keen to acquire newer bodies and will very occasionally push the limits of their capability. It has not been a passing fancy and as I am moving to Virginia next week I already have plans for a blind in my back yard. Some folks will spend a few thousand dollars to go to the Catskills and listen to a lounge lizard act while inebriated others will go to Las Vegas and drop $300 a ticket to hear Celine Dion sing her heart out. Me, I just want to be outside and take pictures of rabbits and squirrels with $14,000 worth of hardware that will depreciate within a few years. Thank you mister squirrel. Stay frosty.

Stephen, When my Fuji S2 that used Nikon lenses and AA rechargeable batteries failed about 8 years ago it had been well used but never damaged. The electronics became wonky and processing was slow. Nothing dramatic like green guacamole oozing out as it flashed on and off during its death throes, just a gradual slowing down that I could not explain. My primary cameras at that time were a a D2x a D200 and a new D3s. I still have the D2x and D3s that have not slowed down though I use both less and less, especially the D2x. I baby my gear in a dry cabinet in hopes that there will be less problems associated with moisture on electrical contacts as well as to prevent mold on the glass. I truly loved my Fuji S2 but I think that the newer stuff will probably hold up better over time. I just bought a refurbished Fuji x100f three months ago that has a fixed lens and choice of electronic or mechanical shutter. All most no moving parts and dead silent. I have started carrying it everywhere. It will be interesting to see how it holds up. My current Nikons are between 1 and 7 years old and I believe still too young to say but given their history so far I will not hold my breath. My biggest fears is that the rubber on the camera bodies may become tacky as it gets older. Enjoy your back packing and the fact that you don’t have to carry film. Good hunting.

Raymond, I understand your point but I think it depends on the situation with film. That is why I would consider having more than one density. With digital you can use light room or NIK digital filters in PS to brighten or bring down the sky as long as you’re within range and can capture all the information with the dynamic range that is available or just combine multiple different exposures in Photoshop. With film as you pointed out your more restricted so you need to bring more options when you’re shooting. There is nothing wrong with that and the Hitech grads are a bargain at $30 for the 84mm version. I have never used a round screw in grad on land. It’s always been for split images between water and the skyline. The rectangular filters with a holder are better than square because they give you more room to place your transition zone. I would also say that with landscape, the way I visual the shot is not necessarily how it appears in real life. So my goals with graduated filters may well be different. Good hunting.

Raymond, with film I used to carry a 2, 3 and 4 stop set of resin SinghRay and Hitech soft and hard grads using a holder and adapter and a tripod. Now that I shoot with a digital camera, even those with low dynamic range I just travel with a 3 stop hard and a 3 stop soft and do any correction in post with a holder . It’s been many years but when I shot film (Provia for wild life and Velvia for landscapes) Art Wolfe, I think, told me to spot meter the gray not too close but adjacent the sun for my mid tone for sunsets. If I were shooting film again I would definitely be carrying a more complete set for multiple circumstances. Also know that even the SinghRay filters gave me a fringe color cast at times. My understanding is that the NiSi filters that are optical glass and more expensive are better over all. About 15 years ago I was at Red Reck Canyon outside of Las Vegas at the rest top on the highway. There was a young man standing under the awning next to the bathroom no doubt working on his college photography project hand holding his rebel camera in one hand and a square Cokin grad in the other and a cigarette hanging out of his mouth, while dangling the filter in front of the lens to take the shot. A budding Ansel Adams no doubt. Smart to use the awning for shade no doubt. Some how the scene it’s etched in my mind. I truly hope I never get to that place. My vote is for three stops but then with film I might have a two stop to try as well.. Good hunting.

Andrew your scaring me. “Neural net!!!” You know some of us watched the Terminator movies and actually paid attention. Some one once told me that my brain was like a neural ring. Is that a compliment?

So will mirrorless always be mirrorless. It’s a negative term that denotes a comparison that may some day be irrelevant. Is there a better word to describe the direction we are heading. More over if we coin a new term, will we get to be in Wikipedia?

Jason, Please see the explanation on matrix metering, from the Nikon web site that I cut and pasted below that explains that matrix metering not only accounts for simple exposure and trying to achieve 18% gray that has always been implicit in the design of modern camera exposure meters but also takes into account distance and color based on a preset database of colors and then determines “the best exposure.” That is perhaps why anytime you point your camera in a different direction or at a different color no matter how subtle, things change. I think this accounts for the aperture priority behavior that concerns you. We look at a cerulean blue sky but seldom pay attention to the subtle differences that appear from north to south in both color and brightness. I have a D3s as well as D850 and assume that their matrix database may be different in a not so subtle way and have always accepted the difference that Nikon has programmed into the camera, the technical aspects of which are well beyond my simple mind. Good hunting. 3D Color Matrix Metering II Matrix metering evaluates multiple segments of a scene to determine the best exposure by essentially splitting the scene into sections, evaluating either 420-segments or 1,005 segments, depending on the Nikon D-SLR in use. The 3D Color Matrix Meter II takes into account the scene's contrast and brightness, the subject's distance (via a D- or G-type NIKKOR lens), the color of the subject within the scene and RGB color values in every section of the scene. 3D Color Matrix Metering II also uses special exposure-evaluation algorithms, optimized for digital imaging, that detect highlight areas. The meter then accesses a database of over 30,000 actual images to determine the best exposure for the scene. Once the camera receives the scene data, its powerful microcomputer and the database work together to provide the finest automatic exposure control available.

Jason, Thanks for starting a stimulating conversation. For me matrix metering has always been a leap-of-faith but one I believe has been a good one, certainly better than bungee jumping. When I shot film it was manual everything and spot metering exposure of Velvia film at iso 40 rather than its native 50 because Velvia did not like being under exposed. The only time I ever have tested a body at the sky was to meter against the northern sky using sunny sixteen or with a calibrated Wallace expo disc pointed in the vicinity of the sun on a sunny day. With matrix metering I assume there will be variability built in by the nature of a process I don’t understand well as well as between different camera bodies. Also the matrix meter can account for different colors I assume in a differential way. I really like the phrase “apply magic” because I have never really believed that matrix exposed a scene evenly as compared to spot metering that exposes for a point in the scene and tries to make that point 18%. Since starting the use of auto iso for action shooting my leap of faith has become bigger while my belief that I can predict exposure consistently has become the reciprocal. But if you were to ask me am I satisfied with the results I would have too say yes. When I use to shoot underwater with film I would use underwater guide numbers with estimated distance ( I could do math in my head back then). Now days I adjust the flashes manually to balance the lighting and check for blinkies. There is considerably less discipline in the process. I still occasionally spot meter manually but more and more have surrendered to automation. If you want to check your system out to see if the problem is in the camera and not where you are pointing it I would recommend eliminating all variables and using a calibrated Wallace expo disc that in the film days was used for 18% gray metering but nowadays more often is also used for white balance. They are not that expensive and I still keep one in my kit the way I would keep a 35mm film extractor tool around to save the day. Stay frosty.

Maurycy, I own the 28-105 and agree with the positive comments. The 28-70mm version I own is a monstrous f2.8 version that is dated but still sharp enough for my taste. The slower 28-70 f3.5-4.5 has become the mainstay of professional underwater photographers using the Nauticam wide angle corrector port, including Alex Mustard who arguably is at the top of the field and shoots a D5. So he shoots a lens (arguably the most important part of his kit) you can only buy used for under $100 with a $6500 camera with a $3500 housing and $4500 dome port with twin $3000 a piece SEACAM flashes. I am certain any of the above lenses will be satisfying but you would be in good company with the 28-70. Stay Frosty.

Maurycy, I know you want a zoom but you might consider a fixed focal length lens with a wide aperture such as a 50mm f 1.8. It will autofocus better in low light, can be used with higher shutter speeds in low light and render a nice blurred background to help isolate the portrait subject when you shoot wide open. As well at the price point you are operating the image quality will likely be better without having to stop down. The”D” autofocus lenses work with this body. Your angle of view with this lens will be consistent with a 75mm lens on the D90. You would have to zoom with your legs. Sorry for the distraction but thought it was worth considering. Good hunting.

Ray, I replaced my 3880 with a P800 December of last year. I think the P800 does a little bit better job with greens. I think the improvement between the 3880 to P800 is incremental and nothing to justify replacing the earlier generation if you don’t have to. I imagine that the 3800 is probably neck and neck with the 3880. I replaced my 3880 because the dampers were messed up. Repair cost for replacing all the dampers would be about $800 because of the work unless I did the work myself and then it would be around $200 not including the time to take the printer apart repair/replace the head and dampers and put it back together correctly not to mention recharge all the inks. There are YouTube videos on how to do it. The black smearing along the edges of the print you showed us looks to me to be damper related and given the age of your printer its time to start having damper problems. My yellow 3880 cartridge was sucking black ink into the cartridge that would show up on test prints. I chose to buy a new printer. The P800 is $895 dollars with the current discount. The 3880 I had for 9 years was amazingly reliable. The P800 so far seems to be good to go. I print for myself and friends. Something to consider is that most printers are made of plastic and metal. Plastic just sitting around will outgas and become brittle and friable even if its seldom used. There is a good argument to replace your 3800 that I believe was in its day one of Epson’s home runs. Good hunting.