eajames

Thank you all for your comments.

Don't you love these new clickable embedded advertisements? Shame on you photo.net!

The new 60mm is AWESOME. So you get stung every once in awhile - the bokeh is to die for.

 

www.flickr.com/groups/bokeh_/discuss/72157594222370991/

I own neither, but I'm considering the 200-400mm f4 VR lens for (initial) use on a D300 - it will replace

my 500mm f4 P. Because of its cost it will likely be a lifetime investment. I would appreciate any

comments from those of you who have used this lens on the D3. Input on imagine quality provided by

this combination with the TC-14E II is also appreciated.

Shooting from a tripod with the sensor plane parallel to the street would be challenging. If

you hope to acheive this perspective, a monopod and a bean bag might be the preferred

tools. Live View would come in handy here. Such a set up would be unwieldy so it would be

best to tether the camera to yourself or some suitable anchor.

The 24-70mm has not been available for a few weeks - not at the retailers I deal with. I have been hoping that Nikon has slowed production to correct the numerous QA issues that have plagued this lens; issues like vignetting/fall-off, field curvature, and front focusing. BR seems to think it's a stellar lens - maybe the up-and-coming lenses will be. This is what I'm hoping and holding out for.

The 17-55mm is considered to be sharper at wider apertures whereas the 17-35mm wins

at "landscape apertures". The 17-55mm has a sealing gasket, the 17-35mm has an

aperture ring. You probably know these things. Consider thinking outside the 17-35 vs

17-55 box. The 14-24mm makes a versatile WA lens for DX and the 24-70mm on a DX

camera covers standard portrait focal lengths. For what I like to shoot the 14-24 and 24-

70 lenses are great for DX; on FX the former is too wide at the wide end for me and the

24-70 has marginal utility as a portrait lens (but they cover FX and thus alleviate concerns

about future camera compatibility.) The 55mm Micro is a wonderful lens and mine is as

sharp or sharper wide open than the 17-55mm at 55mm. If you are set on getting the

17-35 or the 17-55, I recommend the 17-35 plus the 55 Micro, or perhaps the new

60mm AFS that is soon to become available.

I find that I use it for candid portraits and wildlife. It's the closest thing I have to Zeiss glass for Nikon. It's sharp as can be; the colors, contrast and 3D quality of the slides are hard to beat.

 

Sadly, I don't use it as often since purchasing the 70-200mm AFS. Try not to let the size and weight keep you from taking it with you. Here are a few 180mm AIS shots (most were shot with a tripod):

 

http://purebredmutt.net/humans4.html

 

http://purebredmutt.net/mutts11.html

 

http://purebredmutt.net/scrabble5.html

 

http://purebredmutt.net/landscapes.html

 

http://purebredmutt.net/breeds3.html

 

http://purebredmutt.net/flora4.html

 

http://purebredmutt.net/fauna2.html

 

http://purebredmutt.net/fauna8.html

It must have been exciting to be there and photograph the (potential) first orange president.

I've used a 500mm P on an Arca Swiss B1 for years. I can obtain sharp images in most

situations but I can easily imagine - as others have pointed out - that using a gimbal device

would make things smoother and more convenient, and ultimately provide you with more

dramatic keepers. Using a 500mm f4 on a ballhead severely limits your ability to smoothly

follow wildlife. I don't use the 500mm P too often so I can't justify the cost of a Wimberley or

King Cobra. Have you looked at the Acratech compromise: They have the GV2 and a newly

announced LLH. I can tell you that the V2 is a great ballhead - maybe someone here can

comment on the GV2 in gimbal mode.

I've found that I use a 50mm equivalent on 4X5 for landscapes far more than any other

lens - I was surprised to discover this. Yes, the 55mm Micro is a great all-around lens -

my current preferred dSLR kit includes the 14-24, 35mm f1.4, the 55mm 2,8 Micro, and

the 70-200mm VR. I'm not sure that touting the 55mm MIcro is useful to the OP but it my

be a good option for some. I believe that they are still available new for under $400.

 

Oskar's comments are quite useful - his synopsis sums up what I've gleaned from reports

and photo.net threads. It doesn't make the decision much easier. Oskar: do you think

that the 1.4 has a bokeh advantage over the 1.8?

While I agree with your 55mm quality comments, how can a 50mm focal length on DX have

no utility while the 55mm is found useful? (That's like saying Obama isn't worthy of the top

office but he can be Clinton's VP). The 75mm f1.4 for Leica M is one of the finest portrait

lenses out there - this would not be the case if the 75mm perspective were useless.

I purchased a 16-85mm VR last FRI and returned it on MON. My motivation was to find a

decent WA for DX packaged in a small and light-weight "travel lens". Early reports suggested

that the 16-85mm displays little distortion at the wide end. (The French Review that's

floating around and the Rockwell "review".) My testing was certainly not exhaustive - I simply

evaluated a handful of tripod-supported images taken at the wide end and decided that the

images were not up to my standards. Distortion is significant - circles were rendered as

ovals with high eccentricity. I threw up my hands and invested in the 14-24mm lens.

Rico, It's too late to persuade you, but you've made a huge and costly mistake. Once you see

how the 50mm f1.8 performs you will be spoiled - you will want more. Kidding aside, you

did the right thing in hanging on to the 18-55mm lens, and you will love the 50mm f1.8.

Good luck and have fun with it.

I've been using West Coast Imaging for a few years. Their service and packaging is great. I

can only speak for the Chromira to Fuji Crystal Archive and Super Gloss products - both are

consistently superb. I'm not sure what you mean by large - I believe that they outsource

Chromira prints larger than 36 inches. I recommend signing up for their online sales through

their website - they have never spammed me; they merely advise you of sales and provide

useful Photoshop tips. They always have some sort of deal going - if you time things right

you can save roughly 20% on scanning and printing services. (Currently there is a scan sale

going on.)

I spell mine "Eric", unless it is snowing,.

Not far from SE MI there is Point Pelee:

 

http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/on/pelee/index_E.asp

 

And in South Central MI there is a wildlife preserve or sanctuary - the name escapes me - you'll see it on a map about 40 east of Ann Arbor and north of Jackson.

 

Both of these sites are gems!

www.kcamera.com in Kenmore WA has been selling the 24-70mm AFS for $1599 since it

came out - they are USA lenses and the shop can be trusted. I'm not sure if they have it in

stock today, but their website is updated frequently.

Hi Silvio,

 

I'm not one to manipulate my photos in that manner but I admit, it's awful tempting in this

situation - after all, it's just a crop out of the center:) In this case I just set the black point

(~3%), threw a simple contrast curve at it, then "saved for web" in CS3. Maybe I'll play with it

move latter, but I'm still sorting through the night's photos. Cheers

I'm running Mac OS 10.4.11. The new NX runs faster than the old NX, which is good because

the old version was so slow I never used it.

 

This new version identifies itself as: Capture NX Version 1.3.1-25111 SPM Version 1.3.2

 

It this what you are seeing?

 

Also: Does anyone know why the copyright statement only covers 1998-2006?

If your business isn't beginning until next year, you might want to wait to see what

happens. Dropping 5K on the D3 only to have a 24MP FF dSLR hit the market would be

unfortunate, particularly if your clients are interested in large prints.

 

I have a D300 and rather wish I had purchased the D3. (I'm sick of the DX conversion

factor in part because there still isn't a wide prime for DX. The 14-24mm f2.8 sounds like

a gem but I would have little use for it on FF and I refuse to invest so much on a lens that

won't except filters just to achieve an ultra-wide to wide view on a DX camera.

 

For your work, a DX body welded to the 24-70mm f2.8 would provide you with a great

pet photography rig. I doubt that we will see a better Nikon DX body by the time you

retire to your pet photography business.

I live in Seattle so I took the Bainbridge Island Ferry across Elliot Bay to photograph the

eclipse. I spent two hours trying to get permission to shoot from a private shore front but

most folks weren't home at that time. As the eclipse approached I found a pull out on a bluff

- it wasn't an ideal position to shoot the mid-full eclipse because the moon was too high in

the sky. I shared the spot with two other photographers from the island - nice folks who

also used the 70-200 AFS. I'm still rummaging though my images to find the best. This one

was shot at 7:15 PM with a D300 at ISO 800 using a 70-200mm AFS set at 70mm, f4 and

4/10s.<div></div>

I usually get to my destination before photographing.

 

Many 4-season down bags allow you to redistribute the insulation to the lower baffles for use in warmer seasons - still you are stuck with the weight of a heavier bag. I have a 3-season down mummy bag and a 3-season down semi-rectangular bag - sandwiched together they provide adequate insulation for most winter nights.

 

The same goes for your tent - a 4-season tent is heavier than a 3-season tent. A 4-season tent can also be muggy in the summer. If I were you I would start with a 3-season bag and a 3-season tent. If you are just starting out, the idea of using a bivy sack for a shelter may be intimidating. Bivy sacks are less than ideal in bad weather, but they are light and easy to "set up".

 

I carry a blue tarp with me; I use it during the day as a ground cloth for my gear when shooting, and I use it at night as a ground cloth for my bivy sack. The simple, cheap and light blue tarp is a wonderful accessory: with your gear unloaded upon it, you can quickly relocate (short distances) by grabbing the four corners; it can be used as a windblock for your tripod-mounted camera; it can be folded over your gear if shooting in dusty or wet condition; and it can be used as an emergency shelter if things turn sour.

 

Good luck and have fun!

Dan, Your advice to the OP is sound - I'm tempted to change my travel plans, but I enjoy the convenience of a vehicle. I knew that the Caribou migrated westward in summer/fall but I didn't realize that they traveled so far. Thanks for the advice and kind comments.

 

Scott, Kenai Fjords is a bit of a zoo in the summer - one of the more remote parks may provide you with more marketable photos and unique opportunities, as Dan has suggested of the Kobuk Region.

ISO 3200 with NR set to normal took quite a sharpness hit - do you think that this was from subject movement? Thanks for the post.