daryl

Hi Vanessa,

 

If you're truly getting into primarily macro work, you need to figure out exactly how much

you'll need out of a body.

 

Hi speed motor drive? not likely, unless you're shooting skittish insects. If that's the case

then you'll want to get something with a decent flash system, or spend the time to get a

manual flash setup dialed.

 

Bright 100% finder? I think this is always important, especially when you're in close

because you'll find that you lose a ton of light when magnification gets high.

 

MLU? Possibly, especially on an older camera. The pro F models all have it and many of

the others have mirror pre-fire, but this is a pain if you're trying to work around

intermittent gusts. It's difficult to outguess the wind when you have to wait for a 10

second self timer. On the newer bodies, the mirror damping is more effective and the

need for MLU is minimal now (like on the F100).

 

Cable release: always a good idea to minimize camera shake when tripping the shutter.

The newer bodies need a special electronic shutter release, whereas the older models use

the standard cable style.

 

I shoot a bunch of macro, ranging from stacking lenses, extension tubes, to a dedicated

macro lens (sometimes plus extension) and a PB-6 bellows. I've found that the subjects

are usually uniform in tone and metering is quite easy, especially with flowers since there

is always some middle tone green to meter off. I've shot with a bunch of Nikon bodies (F2,

F3, FE, FM2, F4) and think that the F3 would be the best way to get into it if you want to

shoot only macro. If you're looking for more of a well-rounded camera, the F100 is a

fantastic machine. Personally, I'd avoid the F4 because it's dated and the controls aren't

anything like the newer generation bodies if you make any upgrades.

 

On the topic of tripods, a sturdy tripod makes a ton of difference. Make sure you're

looking at one that can get you all the way down to ground level since that's where most

of the plants are. You may also want to look into a waist level finder, or right angle viewer

so you don't have to lay down in the dirt too much. Something else to consider is your

tripod head and QR adapter. This makes a massive difference as well. Since I've switched

to a sturdier tripod and bigger ballhead (Gitzo safari and Arca B1) the system is way

sturdier and my macro shots are much crisper.

 

Hope that helps. if you have any macro related but off-thread questions, please feel free

to e-

mail me.

In response to Andy's comment about the difference in flange-to-film distance, it's true

that the nikon distance is greater. The adapter has a single element to correct for this.

From the ones I've seen, the element looks pretty cheap and optical quality will be

compromised.

 

Remember that with the adapter you won't have the ability to meter and compose with

open aperture and you'll have to use stop-down metering. It may be easier to focus first

(wide open) and then meter the scene and you'll be able to check DOF at the same time.

 

Good luck,

I have one of those. It's the same thread size as the DR-3 so everything should be just fine. I haven't really compared it to the DR-3 version so I can't really tell you if there are any differences between the two.

As a quick fix, you might want to take your camera in to your local repair shop and have a second tripod mount placed <i>on top</i> of the camera. That way you'll be able to right that image after all... ;-)

Sounds like a problem with the lens. Could be a sticky diaphragm, or maybe something in the little linkage that connects to the body. You can see it if you look carefully just inside the lens mount. There should be a little tab in there that operates the diaphragm. The clue that it's the lens is that the body still functions with the 45/2.8... If the lever in the lens is sticky, then it will hold up the lever inside the body and that keeps the shutter cycle from completing (mirror release, etc)<P>

What you can try, is to take the lens off the body and close down the diaphragm. Now <B>carefully</B> move the little lever and see if it operates smoothly. The aperture blades should snap back into place when you release it. If not, then there's problems and the lens will need to be repaired.

<P>

 

You should probably avoid using the 70-210 until you have have it checked out. It could possibly damage the body if you keep using it.

1:1 is 1:1. Regardless of focal length, your DOF will be the same for any given magnification ratio. So it doesn't matter if you're shooting with the 60 micro, the 105, or the 200 because your DOF should be the same. <P>

Now I'm going to confuse things a little. When you're looking at a photo in a book, you don't necessarily know if it was shot at 1:1 unless the author says so. Thinking back to John Shaw's macro book (I have it around here somewhere), it was printed a few years back. As in, back when the 105 micro only went to 1:2. So shooting at 1:2 at f/8 and f/11, he'd have more DOF than you shooting 1:1 at f/16. Hm, now I think I should go grab my book and check it out to make sure I'm not talking out my a**...

Another thing about macro shooting is that at higher magnifications, the camera is way more susceptible to shake and vibration. Any sort of wind will move the subject sufficicntly and it may also shake your camera. Make sure you are shooting off a sturdy tripod (with a robust head) and that you are taking other steps to minimize camera vibration.<P>

 

For example: Mirror Lock Up (not many cameras have it), Shoot early in the morning before wind currents start to pick up, You can hang your camera bag off the tripod to add weight to the setup, Try using the elastic cord setup on your tripod (there are other threads on this one, but it involves tying a piece of shock cord with a loop in the end that you put your foot through and stand on), Always shoot with a cable release, And try to weight your camera. You can do this by resting your hand on the prism when you shoot, or even hanging your jacket on it or something. Anything to deaden shutter and/or mirror induced vibration. <P>

 

Or maybe you just need more expensive lenses ;-)

A lot of it is technique. Since your DOF is minimal, you need to compose a shot that is pleasing to the eye, but also technically possible. This often means making compromises. One thing is to make sure that the film plane is parallel to the main subject of your photo. That way a large portion of your subject will be in that small DOF. <P>

You do this by careful inspecting the finder when you are setting up your shot. It's also a good idea to step back and look at the camera itself and how it's sitting relative to the subject. Often this may reveal that you still have a small amount of adjustment to do...

I agree with Todd on this one. The 80-400 isn't exactly what I'd consider a travel lens on account of its size and weight. I'd be more tempted to look into the 24-85 and pair it up with the 70-300. That would cover a very good range of focal lengths with a couple highly regarded lenses. <P>

Depending on your Nikon body (bodies) or your future plans, you'll need to be careful when selecting lenses since Nikon has been developing two different streams of technology in their SLRs. The manual backups (FM2, FM3, F3, etc) won't be able to make use of several of the features of the newer lenses (VR, G, IS, etc.). In your gallery list I only see an FM3a for Nikon gear, so you won't be able to use the VR feature of that lens anyway.

I was looking through the gallery pages recently and I was struck by the framing in this folder. Most of the shots have the top of the model's head cropped and the compositions work very well. <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=309592">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=309592</A>

</b>oops. there.

</b>

<I>"in the field" ??</i><P>

What does this mean? What type of shooting are you going to be doing? There is a lot of experience and expertise in this forum, so if you could please explain a little more about your situation, perhaps the answers will be that much more meaningful.

Just to add to David's comment (as I've also been comparing the AF and MF micro lenses)... The AF version has Ed glass, whereas the MF doesn't. Not sure how much difference it makes for this application and I haven't read a lot about it...

Other than the Domke bag option, I might suggest the messenger style shoulder bag. I have a few of them, and the padded insert comes out of my Lowe Pro S&F Reporter bag and drops right into the messenger bag. Of course, there's nothing to hide the camera when I pull it out of the bag, but in the meantime, it looks like a regular bag, and I feel as though I'm not being scrutinized... That seems to help quite a bit too because I tend to be more relaxed and don't stick out so much. <P>

I posted a question about this a long time ago and one of the suggestions that was made at the time was to carry camera gear in an old diaper bag. Not so sure I'm secure enough to do that myself, but it seems like a pretty good suggestion. At least with the messenger bag it's easy to get to gear quickly, unlike with a backpack. It works well as long as I'm not carrying a lot of gear because that gets pretty heavy after awhile.

Check out the Pictorial History of nikon Cameras at <A HREF="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/index.htm">http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/index.htm</a>. It's a fantastic site with tons of info on just about everything Nikon has ever made...<P>

Just a thought about your budget. It may be worth it for you to save until you can buy the camera you need. If you get something now that is going to limit you down the road, it's not a very wise purchase. As in, you'll end up spending more than that amount in the long run. Just something to think about. BTW, congratulations of your choice of the F2. Great camera, and you can use it to pound in nails when you can't find a hammer.

Leave the polarizer in the bag. If you are worried about the amount of light, it will just cost you an extra stop or more.

You didn't mention what sort of gear you're using, so I'm going to assume you're talking about the Pentax equipment listed in your profile. Looking through that, I'm going to recommend that you take along your 135 as well and try that with a bit of extension. You'll get more free working distance and better control over your background. If the extension tube doesn't maintain any connection to your body, you are going to have to try and use stop down metering, or remember to compensate accordingly. Also, make sure you double check your exposure just before you shoot, as changing your focus can change the amount of extension thus changing your exposure!

Hi Koen,<P>

I'm surprised nobody has suggested Provia for a film choice, either the 100F or 400 flavours. Both have great colours, not overly contrasty nor saturated compared to Velvia and the extra stop or 3 will make a big difference too. <P>

As for lighting, it really depends on the day. Many prefer light overcast, but watch for your colour temperature in these conditions as slide films may come out with a blue cast to them. You can get around this with a warming filter, or try to modify the light with a filtered flash, or using a warm reflector (gold foil or something similar). This will be valuable for shooting around noon, when the light is the coolest. <P>

FWIW, I've had good luck with cardboard sheets covered in semi-crinkled tin foil for my reflectors. I made mine just the right size to tuck in the side of my camera bag. I prefer shooting early in the morning, unfiltered. My second choice would have to be light overcast with a warming filter. <P>

As for your gear, you have decent macro capabilities, but you'll most likely find them limiting in the sense of working distances. Putting an extension tube on a normal lens can yield impressive results but the small range over which you will be able to focus may be a challenge for you. I doubt the 28 will be very practical as your working distance will be virtually nil. I know it's frustrating as a student on a budget, so in the future you may want to look into some more extension tubes (varying lengths) for a bit of variety, or maybe save up for a dedicated macro lens. If it's what you're into, there's no real replacement for one. I shoot with everything from extension tubes, to teleconverters, bellows, lens stacking, reverse mounting, and a decicated macro lens. Of all of those, I have to say that the macro lens is the most versatile and easiest to use.

<P>

Best of luck. Please come back and let us know how it turns out.

I can't remember the factor, but I've read somewhere in the archives that infinity is some multiple of the lens focal length. Maybe I'll try to find it if I have a slow minute or 2.

If it's just a one time deal, are you able to rent a lens from anywhere nearby? If this is a good enough excuse (or justification) to go buy a new lens, then you should maybe look at the kind of shooting that you do most, and pick something that will go along with that...

Hi Angelo. The other answers here are correct. The reason for the differences in brightness is that as the diaphragm in the lens closes, it obviously lets in less light. The DOF preview closes down the diaphragm to the amount that it will be at the moment of exposure. Each value on the dial (4, 5.6, 8, 11, etc) lets in half as much light as the previous number. For example, f8 lets in half as much light as f5.6 and twice as much as f11. So that's why you see a difference in brightness.

Tim,<P>

If you already have a TC=14b, wouldn't it make a little more sense to go for versatility and get a TC-300. It would be better to have one of each, instead of 2 of the same converter (TC-14b).

Ummm, it's probably just metric. 2.5 metres is 8.2 feet. I have a few older German cameras and the focus scales are in metres. You'll be better off focussing with the rangefinder, but you'll soon know for sure when you get your photos back!!

Oh yeah, a couple more thoughts. Ellis makes a good point about upgrading to the 180/2.8. It's supposed to be a pretty sweet lens, and that's definitely on my list of items to get soon. Do you have the option of renting a lens from a decent shop in the area? That would be considerably cheaper than having to buy new glass for a shooting gig. Just a thought. That way you may be able to try out a few different lenses before you make the jump and buy one...<P>

 

<B><I>Old Geezer?????</I></B> I've only ever shot with MF bodies and I'm far from an old fart (I'm 28). I started with a hand-me-down Pentax Spotmatic and moved to Nikon soon after. I've learned that with practice, ability and skill, manual control over a camera can yield pretty damn nice results. I'm not denying that there would probably be more keepers if I was shooting AF, but I'm in it for sport, and I don't depend on photography to put food on my table. There is a certain amount of satisfaction I feel when I look at my slides on a light table knowing that it took some skill to get the shots that I like. I know I'll probably get flamed for saying that, but that's how I feel.