danny_weber

I do lots of hand held macro with flash (flowers & butterflies) and frequently use AF for this. I generally use the AF to get me into range quickly and then make fine adjustments by moving the camera. I've also used Nikon's "focus priority" feature (also called focus trapping--preset the focus point and the camera fires when something moves into focus) to take photos of flowers moving in the breeze or of insects landing on a flower.

 

<p>

 

When I'm shooting on a tripod, I sometimes use AF for focus, especially if the light is dim. AF is much easier to use for this purpose if the camera has selectable focusing areas.

I'm 5'5" tall, and find a 3001 with Arca-Swiss B1 head perfect for me. The height of the head and camera or tripod collar puts the eyepiece at just the right height, and I use it with up to an F5, SB-28, 300/2.8 and TC-20E (I use my hands to help stabilize this combination). I also have a 3262, which I use with either a Bogen Table Top legset or a Magic Clamp for macro work. This is a nice, small head, but I wouldn't consider it for wildlife use with a long lens, since it has no damping

Peter, E200 pushed gives better results than any of the faster slide films currently available. Until E200, E100 pushed gave better results than any of the ISO 200 films available.

The 5T & 6T definitely will vignette on the Nikon 80-200/2.8 unless the lens is set around 200mm. The Canon 500D is 77mm and works well on my latest-version lens at f/11 or smaller, but I have heard that it might not work well with all samples of the lens.

 

<p>

 

I use this combo when I need the fast zoom and don't want to carry a macro lens, but if I expect to have serious macro opportunities, I'd much rather take the 200/4 or 70-180. For macro with extra working distance, I have used a 300 with a PN-11, but lately I've decided this is too much work compared to using one of the macro lenses.

You don't suppose the film advance had anything to do with it?

It's obvious that many of you have no idea of the costs associated with running even a small manufacturing business. Take a look at the dozens of custom-designed plates in the RRS catalog and calculate the engineering costs to develop each one (include having to obtain a sample of each lens and camera--if you can borrow them, you still have to pay for shipping and handling). Then there's the cost of machine time, stocking materials, anodizing (very expensive in any part of the country that cares about water quality), secondary operations, literature printing, order fullfillment, customer service,warranty costs, packaging, bookkeeping, benefits to employees and numerous other costs that add up.

 

<p>

 

If my company were to sell a $55 part in small quantities, we'd want to pay about $20 for it to leave some profits below the line. Although I don't think that Mike or Bryan have my company's overheads, I suspect their margins are none too high, despite what might seem like a high selling cost..

Eveready Lithium AA batteries will give you the best performance from your N90s in any weather conditions. When I was using an N90s I found that the lithiums gave about 4 times the life of alkalines, so that helped defray their higher cost. They're also lighter, especially compared to 4x the number of alkalines.

 

<p>

 

The MB-10 makes changing batteries extremely fast. If you're using the camera without the MB-10, you can still get spare battery holders to speed things up.

Let's see, Tom says he can go to either O'ahu or Maui and several people suggest Kauai. Nothing like answering the question that's been asked.

 

<p>

 

Tom, we go to Hawai'i every year if we can. Having visited all the islands several times (at least), we now spend most of our time there on O'ahu, although most years we spend a week on Maui, too. O'ahu has lots of people, but it has all the things you asked about. It is hard to get big scenics without some sign of the "hand of man" (if that's a problem for you; personally, I love shots with boats, piers, interesting dwellings and even people), but not impossible--the area from Mokuleia Beach Park to Kaena Pt is a good example. There are numerous opportunities to shoot flowers in arboratums or in the wild, some nice waterfalls (none quite up to Akaka Falls on The Big Island), many nice tidal areas and lots of mountains, although most views of them will challenge you not to have highways or houses in them. Hiking trails abound and many of them are relatively "unspoiled". The Waianae (Leeward) Coast offers some excellent opportunities for early- or late-day coastal shooting that can be quite dramatic, and the southeast and Windward coasts offer stunning beach vistas. Hanauma Bay lets you walk in and take fish pictures--we've done it without snorkels on occasion.

 

<p>

 

Maui offers Haleakala Crater, one of the most breathtaking sights you'll find (and not just because of the thin air), with both grand scenics and lots of smaller scenes, as well as protea flowers and silverswords. The Hana Highway has stunning coastal vistas, many places of incredible beauty (we usually spend an afternoon on the Keanae Peninsula just shooting the waves breaking over the lava-rock shoreline), many waterfalls and pools (perhaps not this year, since there's an el-nino-caused drought), black sand beaches, red sand beaches, and more shades of green than Pantone has dreamed up. The Iao valley has unusual views and good hiking possibilities

 

<p>

 

Each of the Hawai'ian Islands offers more than enough scenic beauty. If you really want unspoiled scenery, Moloka'i is probably your best bet. Kauai has some of the prettiest beaches and some of the best inland views and the Big Island has an active volcano and the incredible Hamakua Coast; you can't really go wrong with any choice. Every year we manage to find gorgeous scenery on O'ahu, and decent Chinese food tooPthat's about all we ask out of life, that, and a nice early-morning swim in Waikiki before all the tourists wake up.

"The only reason to buy the RRS B-2 clamp is to have a quick release"?

 

<p>

 

Uh, yes, that's exactly why people buy it. The original questioner was looking for something with a quick release and that's why I suggested it.

I strongly suggest the Bogen 3232 swivel head. It allows you to tilt the lens up or down easily while keeping the monopod vertical. You use the lens collar to rotate the camera for verticals and rotate the monopod from side to side for following action. The head is very inexpensive. Add the Really Right Stuff B-2 Clamp for quick release and you're all set.

Although this is completely unrelated to the original question, the Kenko AF extension tubes provide full AF and meter coupling for Nikon shooters.

www.nikon.co.jp has a complete description of the 70-180mm zoom macro, which is built like the new 80-200/2.8, but lighter and smaller. Optical quality is quite good, and it makes for a surprisingly flexible tool for field work. The zoom gives you the ability to change magnifcation without moving the camera, and it's a good, if slow, general purpose tele zoom. It's replaced both the 60mm and 105mm macros for me, but I still have the 200/4 macro because it has a longer working distance (the zoom acts more like a 100mm lens at highest magnification).

Although Nikon has not done a great job of explaining its virtues, this lens is an excellent tool. Besides being a fine, but slow, general tele zoom, it offers the macro shooter variable magnification, so the image size can be adjusted without moving the tripod. I like the ability to do both very tight shots and wider views from the same position--saves trampling the foliage. In field shooting, there often isn't the option to move the tripod without damging something. I've been using it for product photography instead of the 60 and 105, since I need to do overall shots and details, and have a limited space under the lights.

 

<p>

 

It also maintains a constant aperture as it is extended; therefore it is not effectively much slower than other macro lenses at higher magnification. The only downside is that it achieves this by shortening its focal length at close focus, so its working distance is more like a 100mm than a 180. Despite this, it has replaced all three of Nikon's macros in my shooting--it's great to be able to do a flower closeup and then a general landscape without changing lenses.

 

<p>

 

As for performance, in a series of test slides I shot with the zoom, the 60 and the 200, there was little obvious difference wide open, and virtually none at f/8.