Two23

Yes. One of his posters is hanging in front of me right now ((Mainline on Main Street.) I have a David Plowden railroad photo book personally autographed to me on the shelf to my right (Requiem for Steam.) Plowden was Link's assistant one summer. Kent in SD

I've been shooting trains at night for 11 years now. My lighting system depends on how big a scene I'm lighting, and how far. Normally I just use x5 Nikon SB-25, but my whole system is x8 Nikon SB-25 and x8 White Lightning x3200 monolights (1240ws each.) I use Vagabond battery packs for the monolights, one for each flash. Cybersync triggers give me ~200 yard range. I'll add that in winter, snow on the ground doubles the power of the flash and really helps even it out. As for train crews, they don't care. I've photo'd maybe 500 of them with only one complaint, and that person even complains when someone takes a picture in the daytime. :) Just try to stay off any RR property and there is really nothing they can do anyway. Below shot used x5 Nikon SB-25. I probably could have used one more flash, on the extreme left. Steam engines eat up a LOT of light! It didn't turn out bad though. Kent in SD

Forgot to add that with the little monolights you can get away with buying only one trigger set (sender & a receiver.) The monolights have a built in optical trigger that instantly fires when it senses another flash going off. You could have one flash fired by a radio trigger and the other two will fire with just the optical trigger. At least, if all the flash are in the same room. Kent in SD

The Nikon SB-25 are actually better built and sell for ~$35 each on ebay. You can go fairly cheap (~$30) on stands since this is indoor work and the flash don't weigh much. For a light modifier, might look at shoot-through umbrellas. I use the SB-25 to light up things like railroad bridges and trains--they do put out quit a bit of light. Another thought if you want more light are something like the little Godox monolights. These are $90 and put out 250ws of power. The little 4AA flash (such as Yonguo and Nikon SB-25 etc.) put out the equivalent of about 80-90ws, so you gain about a stop & half of power. This should be enough when shooting with light modifiers, which generally eat up about a stop of light. The light from monolights also gives much more even and wider coverage than that from the little 4AA flash and their small built in reflectors. Personal experience. I agree you don't need iTTL flash--they aren't THAT accurate. For this kind of work I still recommend using a flash meter. It will save a LOT of time, especially for a beginner learning lighting ratios. Again, personal experience. Godox E250 Flash Head E250 B&H Photo Video Kent in SD

This is my area of expertise. I suggest: 1.Buy several Nikon SB-25 on ebay. They go for fifty bucks each and are highly reliable. 2. Buy something like a Raven RS6 or Smith Victor 6 ft. lightstand for each flash. About $35 each on ebay. 3. Buy some "dumb" triggers on ebay such as Yongnuo. A hundred bucks will easily buy a set. 4. Might want some small soft boxes or diffusers on the flash. Ten to twenty bucks each. You will be shooting in manual mode but that's no big deal since your subject isn't moving. You don't need the expense of iTTL flash system. It's going to take you awhile to learn how to use any flash effectively, but it will be worth it. I've been using a system of x8 Nikon SB-25 flash plus CyberSync triggers for a decade now. I use them outdoors, mostly on winter nights. They work down to about 30 below zero. They are highly reliable. By some rechargeable batteries to save a bunch of money. I use Ray-o-vac hybrids which have proven very reliable. I own something like 64 of them. Kent in SD

Probably the best current long lens for value is the Nikon 200-500mm VR. If you are looking for something that is decent and cheap, I'll suggest the older Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO (the one that takes 77mm filters, not 72mm.) The lens sells for ~$250 on ebay. Pluses are it is decent--certainly better than the 50-500mm or 80-400mm. The downsides are no VR and it has the older AF (not AFS.) Sigma AF 400mm f/5.6 HSM APO macro - Review / Test Report Kent in SD

They might have mostly triggered the camera with a short cable release to offset the awkwardness. Kent in SD

There is another park in the West that offers just as many wildlife photo opportunties as YNP, and is much less crowded. It's Custer State Park in South Dakota. No wolves or bears, but plenty of big horn sheep, mountain goats, elk, deer, antelope, coyotes, prairie dogs, turkeys, porkypines, and hundreds of free roaming buffalo. It even has a little bird called the American Dipper that walks under water on the stream bottoms. If I need photos of wildlife, that's the first place I would head. It's much more relaxed there than YNP, too. An hour to the east is the Badlands, which has a surprising amount of Northern Plains wildlife as well. Kent in SD

Did not realize you were coming from UK. You might be ahead to hire a local guide who keeps track of where the animals are, and can find them in specific weather and times of day. Most animals are "creatures of habit." My strategy is mainly to find their food and wait for them to show up. Anyway, there is truth to how we often take what is close for granted, and anything far away is exotic. I have a herd of buffalo about four miles from my house, and drive by them several times a week. I rarely pay much attention to them. Same for coyotes which I see and hear fairly often. OTOH, on my last trip to UK we mostly stayed in Scotland. We spent a day on several unoccupied islands in the Inner Hebrides. My wife and I were astonished at how many birds there were! We were even able to take photos of puffins from about three feet away. I had to switch to a shorter lens to as they were within my len's minimum focus! Kent in SD

I've been an avid outdoorsman/hunter all my life and for a 12 year stretch practically lived in the woods of Missouri. Have also spent over half a century living where wildlife is easy to access. In all that time I've only seen three bobcats and one mountain lion. I've seen tracks, but the critters themselves are very elusive. While a decent lens will help, it really comes down to knowing where the animals will be in specific weather at specific times of day, and putting your time in. That was the one thing I didn't like about wildlife photography--spending days and days just to get one shot (because that's what it takes.) Instead of a strategy of spending a few days in a place far from home, I think your odds are much better spending the time in a place close to home where you can pattern the animals. Kent in SD

Black tails are a different sub species from mulies. We have mostly white tail on the east side of the state and a lot of mule deer on the west side. Black tails are unique to the Pacific Northwest and I don't get to see many. The ears on mule deer are much larger than either black tail or white tail deer--it's their defining charecteristic. Kent in SD

Here's one I took last summer, in Olympic NP. I noticed a black tailed deer grazing along a ridge line, and I wanted to get a shot. The ridge top was pretty narrow and even though these are park deer and accustomed to people, I knew if I approached it the deer would avoid me. So, I picked a spot well ahead of it and sat downwind in front of a small pine tree. I waited. Soon the deer appeared and was heading along the path in front of me. I sat motionless with my camera ready. When the deer ambled by I took a few shots. The doe knew I was there, but since I was sitting down and not making any sudden movements, it pretty much ignored me. I was using a Nikon D800E with my new preferred wildlife lens--the Nikon 24mm PC-E.:) Don't need no 800mm concrete block to take wildlife photos. Kent in SD

My strategy has been to see where the animals hang out. Find a place that seems to concentrate them such as water, food, or a choke point on a trail. Come back dressed in camo, set up a small blind down wind, and wait. Animal photography is all about waiting. It's like duck hunting. Just going to a spot and hanging out with ta crowd of city people will get you nothing. Kent in SD

Half a mile is way too far to get a photo. Even a quarter mile is too far. A tenth mile is really pushing it. Kent in SD

I've owned both lenses. Shot the first version (AFD) on Nikons F100, D80, D300, D7100, D800E. Shot the second version (AFS) on D7100, D800E, D5300. No question the second lens has faster & more accurate AF. Also no question second lens has better VR. And, no question the AFS version is sharper across the range with better contrast. I personally would rate the AFD as a "4" and the AFS as an "8." I still own the AFS, however my plan is to sell it and replace with Nikon 300mm f4 VR-P plus TC-14e III. That combo is sharper yet, one stop faster, and less bulky/lighter. I've been on a quest for the past year to pare down weight & bulk as I have spent more time hiking in mountains over the past two years. Since having a near fatal STEMI in early February I've tried to limit myself to a <30 pound backpack when hiking over 10,000 ft. altitude, and really even 8,000 ft. in steep terrain. Keep in mind I am a "general" outdoor photographer. Obviously photo wildlife since there is a lot of it very near where I live, but also shoot a lot of railroad trains, distant landscapes, and so on. If I mostly shot wildlife I would no doubt buy a Nikon 200-500mm VR as it's a little longer and even sharper than the 80-400mm AFS at the long end. In the 90s I used a Nikon 500mm f4 for wildlife on an N90s, F100, a briefly on F5 and liked it. It's a pile of money though. So, as I said, as an owner of both the AFD is a 4, AFS is an 8, and having briefly tried a 200-500mm VR I'd give it a 9. It's almost certainly your best choice for wildlife. Kent in SD

I would think there would be a lot of noise as the sensor heats up, but I have not tried any really long exposures. Also wonder how long the battery would hold out? Kent in SD

My F3T (fancy variant of the F3HP) is so good I really have little desire to buy any other MF Nikon. It's a joy to use, and beautiful! Kent in SD

I've never found 50mm focal length on DX to be very useful for weddings. A 35mm f1.8G DX is inexpensive and good, but again I would have something like that only for a back up, not as a main lens. Kent in SD

I would not go cheap on lenses that are used for weddings. Or lighting. Weddings are a one time deal and can't be done over. Kent in SD

I used to shoot weddings with a pair of D7100 and had no issues. My suggestion for you is a used D7200, not a D7500 since it doesn't have 2nd card capability. Weddings are all about back-up. The lenses you need, as a minimum, are a 17-50mm f2.8 (I think the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS is the best) and a 70-200mm f2.8. An f2.8 is the slowest I would ever consider for weddings. Something like a Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Nikon 35mm f1.8g would be great as a back-up or extreme low light lens too. If you go to an FX camera you will gain a stop of ISO, but you're going to quickly discover how much lenses will cost. I currently have over $6,000 in FX lenses, all state of art. Kent in SD

I have a D800E, but just don't see it as a "walk around" camera. For that I bought a used D5300. Much more compact and lighter. I use a sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS, an excellent & fast lens. Another option would be the Nikon 16-85mm. I've looked at the 24-120 f4 VR but in the end came to think I'd be very disappointed with as my "regular" lenses are the Sigma ART f1.4 and Nikons 20mm f1.8G & 105mm f2.8 Micro. I never really considered the 28-300mm. Too many compromises for me. Kent in SD

I've been using a pair of d800E (ALWAYS have a back up camera) for weddings for the past two years. No issues at all. I really like the ability to make big enlargements or crop down the 36mp gives. Used prices are already low and will now likely go below $1,000. A D750 would do what you want as well. I would not buy any camera older than D800/E for wedding use as they are beginning to get a bit old. A D2/D3 type camera is much larger and heavier, something I avoid for all day weddings for sure. Kent in SD

First, my background. I've owned & used the D7100, now have D800E. I mostly shoot outdoors, and travel a fair amount. As for buying something right now, I would not. Most people will hang on to what they already have and sell after they receive something new. Prices on D800/D800E cameras will likely be at low ebb in early February. I expect the drop off to start in late November. Now on to the camera. I generally use the D800E when I photo alone. To get the most out of it I use a tripod, which slows things down considerably. That much resolution quickly shows blur. The camera and its lenses are pretty heavy though. For the past two years I've been using a Nikon D5300 with Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 for family outings. It's much quicker to use, less bulk, and lighter to carry. When I go off by myself and am not hiking at high altitude, I generally will use the D800E. There is no difference in image quality between D800E and D810, and I think the autofocus is the same too. Most likely I will totally skip the D810 (unless one comes to me REALLY cheap!) and buy a D850 when used prices drop below $2,000. Kent in SD

My favorite compact MF camera is a 1937 Voigtlander Bessa. It gives a 6x9 negative yet folds up enough to fit in a coat pocket. The best lens is the 105mm Heliar (50mm equiv.) The lens has a quality all its own! Mine is a pre-war uncoated version, but the post war Heliars were coated. The model I have is officially known as the Bessa RF. There was a later Bessa I and then a Bessa II. The Bessa II is fairly expensive, but the -I- is more reasonable. The RF like mine generally sells for a few hundred. I tend to prefer the look from older, uncoated lenses. Kent in SD

I like the Nikon 20mm f1.8G--it's a very good lens. It works pretty well for astro; I just want to try something wider. I'll post a shot I took last month at Mount Rainier NP. Keep in mind I consider myself a beginner at this kind of photography.:) Camera was a D800E. I never use UV filters. Kent in SD