haris

Thanks for your replies. The general gist I get from all the posts is that too much automation can unautomate itself.

 

I like the suggestion of using manual exposure and underexposing the ambient light with the exposure meter itself rather than exposure compensation. It does not sound too difficult as long as light remains constant and compensation is within one stop--the meter does not show more than that. I assume that TTL flash remains fully automatic with manual exposure and give me a proper exposure for the main subject as long as it is in the center of the frame or FV is used, right?

 

+X flash compensation along with -X exposure compensation also sounds good. Will need to experiment.

 

I remain bafled about the reasons why exposure compensation with SLOW SYNC has anything to do with flash exposure. I don't even want to start thinking about throwing TTL-BL in the mixture. At that point the camera-flash combination are way beyond my limited powers of comprehension and they are doing their own thing. Can anyone suggest a good read on this flash mess? Or is this really a feature overload situation? More specifically, how does the BL option change exposure calculations in theory? Anyone?

 

Thanks to all.

I am frustrated with a seemingly simple situation. I am shooting with

D70 and SB-600 speedlite and would like to have a proper main subject

flash exposure along with slightly underexposed bacground. That's all

I want: complete control over the background while the camera/flash

properly illuminate the main subject. Is this too much to ask?

 

I thought that setting the flash to slow sync mode and dialing in -1

exposure compensation would do the trick, but this combination results

in an underexposed main subject. At that point, I went to the manuals

only to find they are thoroughtly confusing. They talk about using S

and not A mode for background exposure control. They also talk about

using spot metering and not matrix or center-weighed. I started

experimenting but it's late, I am tired, and working in my room I

can't set up a situation with a good separation between the main

subject and the background. The camera is also doing weird things:

when I use A or S exposure modes and rotate the main control dial,

exposure compensation sign lights up. I did not even know that the

main dial was active in A mode at all. Apparently, with the flash up

it is! Exposure indicator, which is supposed to move in 1/3 EV

increments, all of a sudden jumps by a full stop when I cross some

kind of boundary.

 

It would be nice if someone could kindly explain in English how this

whole system works, please?!

 

At a minimum, all I want is a simple thing (or so it seemed): how can

I get the background underexposed by 1 stop and the main subject

properly exposed by the flash? I would like to avoid using fully

manual exposure because the lighting of the background may be

changing, but I am not even sure that setting a manual -1 exposure for

the scene would give me the poper main subject flash exposure. Would

it? I am pretty sure that D70 metering system can isolate the main

subject in the center of a frame for proper flash exposre

independently of the background.

Not sure if this will help, but I had the same issue with my 785 EPX. I could not find the profiles for independent download. Eventually, I had to install their PIM II plug-in for Photoshop and the profiles were built into that piece of software. Once the profiles are installed, you can copy them and uninstall the plug-in.

 

Alternatively, there are pleanty of websites that sell custom built profiles. Never used one so I cannot speak about their quality/value.

 

Good luck.

In Photoshop CS2, you have to disable the limited Nikon plug-in in order for Adobe's ACR to work. That may be applicable to PS Elements since installing any Nikon software seems to disable ACR plug-in in PS. I'd guess, that .NEF and .DNG files would give you identical processing options in ACR 3.x after you disable the Nikon plug-in. Then ACR ignores all the .EXIF data and automatically optimizes the image the way Adobe programmers intended--things like exposure, brightness, shadow, saturation, and contrast would be expected to differ between ACR and Nikon plug-in. If spend a lot of time programming things like sharpening and saturation in camera, you should use Nikon Capture as Adobe presently ignores these in-camera settings.

Another big difference is the lack of non-TTL auto mode on SB-600. If you own other manual cameras that don't do TTL, non-TTL auto is nice to have. Otherwise, the biggest difference seems to boil down to remote control capabilities. Since there's nothing to control when you have a single flash, SB-600 seems to be a logical choice for the first flash.

 

How about a third alternative: Sigma's 500 DL Super? I seems to have similar specs with SB-800. I am not sure about its master remote control capabilities and compatibility with Nikon CLS. Can anyone comment on the Sigma?

I need to do some critical document copying. I have Nikon's 105mm

micro. Please share your experience with the apertures that get the

optimal sharpness range for this lense.

 

Some detail work may be required so I wonder if the same aperture

range remains optimal at different magnification ratios. Subject is

flat so DOF is not an issue and I can work with 2.8 at 1:1 if that

will give me the best results.

 

Thanks!

There are a number of suggestions that Tamron makes 70-300mm lense for Nikon and that they are absolutely identical despite the filter diameter difference. There's a lot of disagreement about the quality of the Nikon optic: some users find it quite acceptable and superior to third-party products, while others call it an expensive paper weight.

 

Sigma APO lense, Super II edition, seems to emerge as one of the better lenses in the category and is probably a better alternative to think about than Tamron. In addition to APO (Sigma's equivalent of ED) it also has Macro 1:2 ability built in. Nikon only focuses down to 1:3.9.

I would not recommend using AF lenses for metering and then switching to MF for a picture. The main issue I have with this approach is dust--changing lenses back and forth invites this problem and while cleaning the sensor is not that big of a deal, it's not worth it for me. This is minor, but I also believe that not all f/4 are created equal and even when they are the internals of the lense and coating may lead to a significant translucence differences. Don't also forget that outside the studio the light tends to change quite often. If histogram is not enough, a light meter is a more elegant solution, but I am not thinking aobut purchasing one since a few wasted shots on the digital camera don't amount to anything. Guesstimate the exposure, take a shot, look at the histogram. If it's a keeper, go on shooting, if it's not where you want it to be, press "Delete" twice and all you've done is lose a couple of seconds. This sounded a lot more complicated before I tried it. It became second nature really fast and I don't even think about it anymore. Of course, this is not the most elegant approach is your subject is moving/changing. I don't know how do deal with that kind of a situation with a MF-D70 combination. One has to give...

 

As for the sharpness, no one mentioned the fact that film and digital sensor are very different in rendering detail. Film grain is pretty much round while the pixels are square. If the particles are of roughly the same size, it is a whole lot easier to get sharp looking images out of round shapes than it is out of square ones. Fortunately, there's help but you absolutely HAVE to sharpen your images in-camera or in post-processing if sharpness is your ultimate goal. See RealWorld Photoshop books--the authors explain this concept very clearly.

Mirror lock-up option is accessible through the camera menus. You set it and then press the shutter button. Mirror goes up and does not go down until the battery is dead or your shut down the camera.

<p>

Also, take a look at the article is the first issue of the

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/magazine">PBase magazine</a>

magazine on-line. They have an article on a cheap alternative method for cleaning dust off the sensor. Makes a lot of sense to try a simple soft, oil-free, dust-attracting brush before going in there with chemicals. Of course, once you have dust baked onto the sensor, no brush will help...

<p>

I got my brush at Walgreens for $10 and I am using a bicycle pump to charge it. Have not tried it on the sensor yet because mine is still clean, but the brush picks up dust as the article says.

<p><p>

Good luck!

If you're handy at all and if you are not planning to subject your setup to a lot of abuse, simply take a body cap from a Nikon, cut a hole in the middle and attach it to the bellows somehow. Dismounting the existing mount and using superglue comes to mind...

Not commonly done, but one should calibrate the camera meter regardless of what focusing screen is used. According to people who routinely deal wiht multiple cameras, the range of exposure varies up to 2 stops when the same subject is metered. Some adventurous souls have changed focusing screens in their digital Nikons and love the fact that they get an exposure change from factory default. Upon reading about calibration, I calibrated my cheep EM body and found that its meter was overexposing by +2/3. No changes of focusing screens.

Try E-Bay. I saw quite a few non-functioning FA's being sold for parts and I believe I even saw the doors being sold by themselves.

 

Just out of curiosity: what's wrong with the data back. It gives you a wonderful learning tool through which you can improve your exposure technique and the only sacrifice you're making is looking a bit more geeky than normal. I don't believe the actual phisical size differences in the backs bother you, do they?

 

Best luck!

I am looking for general suggestions on D vs non-D AF lenses to work

with D-70.

 

More specifically, I am considering 105mm AF Micro Nikkor. The D

probably wont matter for macro work; however, how about general

photography such as portraits outdoors. Would it matter much if the

lense has the D capability? I understand that D is very useful when

calculating flash exposures but that's a whole different issue.

 

Nikon manual is rather vague. It simply states that non-D lenses use

Color Matrix metering vs. 3d metering for D lenses. What exactly does

that mean in the case of non-flash photography? Can anyone explain?

 

Given that I could get a non-D used for under $400 used, is it worth

spending an extra hundred or so for the D version?

 

Thanks a bunch.

I am surprised no one is concerned about this. If you do photography with a white background involved (snow), you probably will be setting exposure compensation. Probably not as high as +3.5EV, but the ugly yellows was the case in <b>MY</b> camera. Yours maybe different and worse. I do not think it's measurebating if I want to make sure the camera can handle a situation before I take a shot.<p>

 

Will someone try exposing a monotone subject in a series of shots with +2EV-+4EV range and post the outcome?

I called a couple of dealers in Chicago area and the prices range from $50 (mail-in) to $75 on the low end (simple CLA). This is for 50mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor. AF lenses may be more expensive to maintain, I am not sure.

 

Thanks for all the advice! I decided to give it a try and will attempt home-cleaning some day soon. For the price of cleaning, I can find another used lense if it does not work out. I intend to document the process in words and pictures and will post the results. I hope someone else may find it useful whatever the outcome.

 

Thanks to all again.

I recently came into possession of an optically beautiful Nikkor 50mm

f1.4 AI-S lense. The apperture blades are oily and stick to the point

of not being able close fast enought before the shutter is fired.

 

I am looking for suggestions how to deal with it. I am mechanically

able and would like to fix the problem myself, but if the probability

of destroying the lense is more than 80% I'd rather not do that.

Then, if the cost of fixing it commercially is close to $100 I can buy

another one.

 

I would greatly appreciate any help: do it myself/take to a commercial

repair center, how to remove the oil, how to lubricate after I remove

the oil, things to watch for during (dis)assembly, places to take the

lense (I am in Chicago/Naperville), any things that could happen that

I can't even imagine...

 

Thanks!

I don't believe the lense could be to blame because I was shootint a card that was about a foot away and set the focus to infinity. The images were way blurry!

 

As for +3 values: I really cannot think of a situation when you'd want to set the compensation that high, but values in that range will occur in pictures all the time. The camera has no idea how bright the subject is. It simply measures light and then sets the exposure accordingly. Exposure compensation should not interfere with image processing, it simply biases the meter and changes the exposure time. In the case of the image posted above, the exposure time is 3 seconds.

 

The image was shot with regular Matrix Metering and no Custom Curves. This is the worst occurrence of the yellowing problem of all the shots I took.

Here's the image I was describing<div></div>

I was trying to replicate characteristic curves from

www.photogenetics.com on my D-70 and noticed a very strange thing in

the images from +3 1/3 to +4 exposure compensation. I was shooting a

gray binder back through the whole Exp Compensation range and the

edges of the mostly white images in this compensation range were dirty

yellow. I're not talking about minor discolorations--up to 1/10 of

the lower-right corner was affected as were the bottom and the right

side of the image. Barely noticeable in the top-left.

 

I ran a couple different trials with the kit lense at 70 mm and

wide-open aperture. Matrix and spot metering yielded the same result.

Using +.3EV custom curve from photogenetic changed the output

lightness but did not make a difference in terms of this strange

yellowing (looks like an old photograph). BTW, light fall-off to the

corners was very noticeable but the area affected by the discoloration

was larger than the apparent light fall-off. Most pronounced at +3.5.

I was using Fine JPG quality Small image size.

 

Anybody has seen the same? Ideas what this could be? Please try to

shoot an evenly lit mid-toned object with +3.5 exposure or thereabouts

and let's compare notes. Help me diagnose if this is my camera

problem or a larger issue for all. I'll try the same with different

image quality settings and in raw and post the results.

I had mine returned to the store for replacement after a similar problem. The way to diagnose my problem was by placing the camera into and Auto mode and half-way depressing the shutter in a situation where flash would be required. That should pop the flash head up. Release the shutter and after a while half-press it again. In my case the camera made a clicking sound as if it was trying to release the flash head. In other words, on my D-70 the sensor for the flash position was broken and the camera did not know that the flash was up. Without this indication, it did not fire the flash since it asssumed the light was down.

 

To think of it, I think I tested the camera by just pressing the button on the side of the view-finder box. This time, put the camera in A, S, or M mode and depress the flash button. That should release the flash head and pop it up. Press the button again. If the camera does not know the flash is up, you'll hear a clicking sound of the lever that releases the flash head.

 

Sounded like I was not the first one with the problem, because the Nikon rep I talked to knew what he was talking about.

 

Hope you're still under store exchange time limit. Sending it to Nikon may take a while.

 

All the best,

Haris

I got D-70 #3. Shot over 500 images in the past couple of weeks. Upgraded firmware to 1.0.3 version. Used custom curves.

 

So far so good. Knowck on wood...

You're quite right, Chris. In that case, I would much rather buy two extra batteries than the adapter!

Well, I just received a replacement from Digital4Less. They returned the old outfit with the lense and included a new body in the same box.

 

I was happy until I inserted the CF card. The camera simply forze! The greed reading indicator light on the bottom of the back did not come on and start blinking like it did on the previous body. I took the card out and camera was reset back to the original state--CLOCK started blinking on the top LCD panel. Tried it with two different cards both of which worked fine on the previous body.

 

I've never been this unlucky. I buy a lot of computer electronics from the cheepest never-heard-of-it manufacturers and very very rarely have a problem. NOW, two defective Nikon bodies in the row! I am very surprised.

 

I am sticking with it and sending this one for replacement as well. I hope third time's the charm.

I own a C-4040 and was extremely happy with it for a while until I got annoyed with its limitations and bought a D-70. C-8080 is most likely much better at what C-4040 could do, but I found it most annoying to dig through the menus to find fuctions, to wait for camera to start and process images, and not being able to see what I am shooting through the viewfinder.

 

One thing I have not seen mentioned that Olympus has going for it, though, is the fact that it's sensor does not get dust. You never need to clean it!

I mailed mine back to the seller as it was within the 30-day exchange window. In my case, the camera also did not imprint the color space correctly. I set the JPEGs to be captured in Adobe RGB color mode, but they all invariably were recognized by Photoshop CS as regular sRGB.

 

Good luck with your camera. I am still waiting for mine to return.