mab

<p>Thanks Robert!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks John and Ross. Obviously it would be easier and cheaper if someone sold pre-fab diopters in the Leica viewfinder mount, but I guess if you want easy and cheap you should be playing with Leicas in the first place.</p>

<p>So the next question: does anyone sell empty M viewfinder mounts (into which a proper diopter can be fitted), or is the only option to buy a complete one and discard the glass?</p>

 

<p>Does anyone make Leica M viewfinder diopters stronger than -3? My poorly-evolved dominant eye would need a -4.5 or -5 to see much in the viewfinder without glasses, and the M9 viewfinder doesn't have a high enough eyepoint to let me see much past the 35mm frame lines with my glasses on. Nikon makes a -5 for the F and D pro bodies, but Leica's diopters line seems only to go down to -3. Is there an aftermarket vendor that caters to us half blind photographers?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>I have had excellent luck with the Dawn Tech Pro-L, which has not only a good quality screw-fit plug, but also a 10-pin socket so you can still use an MC-35 cable release.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Focus points that cover the whole frame on full frame sensor D3{x,s} cameras, as they did on the earlier DX models. This is a huge deficiency in Nikon (and other vendors') current DSLRs, and it was the single thing that disappointed me most when I upgraded.</p>

<p>I was walking home around midnight one night in February just as a blizzard was taking hold. Unfortunately, a freight train was passing through where I needed to cross the tracks and I was left standing in the snow for a bit; fortunately, that gave me time to take my D3s out of my backpack.</p>

<p>AF 85mm/1.4D (@ f/1.4), D3s (@ ISO 5000), 1/160 sec.</p><div></div>

<p>I was shooting yesterday near Tracy, CA, specifically along the Pacific AC Intertie power transmission line and at the Altamont Pass wind farm. The Pacific Intertie is a 500KV AC electrical power trunk running from Oregon to southern California. Near the power line the levels of 60Hz electromagnetic radiation are moderately high (e.g., cars parked underneath it vibrate noticeably, AM radios don't work well, etc), but are (or should be!) below the levels where special precautions (like fences and warning signs) would be required.</p>

<p>I was shooting with a D3x and D3s. A few of times the D3s displayed "Err" on the LCD (usually after a lens change), but cycling the power a couple of times would clear it. The D3x seemed to behave normally, but when I got home, a couple of the NEF files were corrupted (although the corresponding JPEGs on the other CF card were OK). The CF with the corrupted NEFs was a 64GB SanDisk that is exhibiting no obvious signs of problems and that passes write tests, etc.</p>

<p>The D3x and D3s are both advertised as being shielded against electromagnetic interference, but as far as I can tell none of the published specs give precise numbers in this regard.</p>

<p>Does anyone have any experience with using the D3x or D3s in high-EMI environments? Are the problems likely transient, or need I be concerned with longer-term problems?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>-matt</p><div></div>

<p>I got my 28/1.4 just before it was discontinued. I had initially found it to be quite soft, then I did some more in depth testing and found it to be out of alignment. After a warranty repair to get it into spec, it's served me quite well. But apparently Nikon had some real QA issues with these lenses, and I'm told that a surprising number of them had the same problem as mine, coming out of the factory mis-aligned. That could explain some of the mixed reviews.</p>

<p>CA fringing is not a showstopper issue with the 28/1.4 even on the D3x, although there is certainly a touch in high-contrast subjects.</p>

<p>I use my 28/1.4 now mostly in low-light with the D3s, where it lets me shoot in lower light than I'd ever thought possible.</p>

<p>That said, I'm definitely looking forward to seeing more shots with the 24/1.4.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>OK, it looks like the Dawn Tech unit is the one to go with, although that bluetooth device looks promising as well.</p>

<p>Joseph, that's certainly an option, but really prefer to have the location recorded in the raw files. This is simply tradeoff between cash and convenience, and in this case I think convenience is winning...</p>

<p>Paul, does your Dawn Tech GPS have a compass and report orientation?</p>

<p>Thanks again all.</p>

<p>Oddly, I find my f/1.4 lenses are getting more use than ever with the super-sensitive D3s. At f/1.4, one can shoot handheld in very low ambient light at ISO 3200, which on the D3s yields very little noise and reasonably acceptable dynamic range. This lets me shoot under conditions I never would have even considered photographing in using film or the previous digital sensors. Above 3200, one can get by with slower lenses and still shoot in this kind of light, but at the expense of image quality even on the D3s.</p>

<p>And, of course, these lenses have a wonder ability to isolate subjects. The 28/1.4 is particularly versatile in this regard -- wide angle DoF control that approaches what you get with medium format (on FX and 35mm at least).</p>

<p>Perhaps when a D4s comes out I'll be satisfied with 2.8 zooms (actually, I've never liked zooms, but OK), but for now, my "holy trinity" is the 28/1.4, the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.4. I'd welcome turning that into a quartet. Maybe a 21/1.4? (Hey, I can dream).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Akira and Paul.</p>

 

<p>What kind of shooting do you do? And do you shoot film/fx or dx format?</p>

<p>Both are terrific lenses, but personally I find myself using the 85/1.4 a lot more than the zoom.</p>

<p>The 85/1.4 is a bit soft wide open, which is fine for portraits if that's what you do. Mine got new life in the evenings with the D3s; being able to crank up the sensor gain and shoot at 1.4 makes possible shots that simply couldn't have been captured before at any reasonable image quality.</p>

<p>The zoom, on the other hand, has VR, which is very nice if you don't like tripods. But remember that VR is only useful to control *your* movement, not the subject's. If the children you shoot are moving targets, being able to open up 2 stops and shoot at 4x the shutter speed may make a lot more difference than the steadying effect of VR.</p>

<p>Here's a moving freight train, shot at midnight in last night's epic snowstorm, 85mm/1.4, 1/160 @ f/1.4 (D3s @ ISO 5000):</p>

<div></div>

<p>Duplicate</p>

<p>Duplicate</p>

<p>Is there a Nikon compatible GPS unit for 10-pin Nikons (such as the D3{x,s}) that has a passthrough standard 10-pin female connector? I want to be able to connect my own contact closure-type shutter trigger (such as from a PocketWizard) with the GPS connected at the same time.</p>

<p>The Nikon GPS doesn't quite do the trick here; you can connect a D70-type remote release, but that uses a different (proprietary) connector.<br>

Is there a unit on the market that can do this?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

 

<p>Right, the "tripod" mode works well when panning on a tripod or when using an unlocked Wimberly-type head. If everything is locked down, VR is best kept off, for the reasons discussed.<br>

I've found the VR performance degrades significantly when used with a teleconverter, but it still does work a bit.</p>

<p>Thanks all, for the quick (and reassuring) responses.</p>

<p>Using a TC17EII with a 400mm/2.8G AF-S VR, should, yield a 680mm/4.8 lens (1.7x the focal length with 1.5 stops slower maximum aperture), right?. Yet this combination reports 650mm/4.8 in the EXIF data from both my D3s and my D3x. It shows 650mm regardless of the focused distance, from minimum to infinity.</p>

<p>Is there something wrong with my teleconverter, or is there some weirdness in the way focal lengths are calculated that causes 680mm to be rounded down to 650mm in recorded EXIF data? I get correctly reported focal lengths when I use the 400/2.8 by itself or with the TC14E or the TC20E.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>Yes, but the 85mm PC can focus closer and works better at high magnification than the 45mm. I also tend to use a 240mm for 4x5 tabletop work, but when I was using a D2x, I was reasonably happy with the 85mm PC's focal length for tabletop work (the 45mm PC didn't exist then).</p>

<p>It's still out of the original poster's price range, sadly.</p>

<p>All that said, thinking about it a bit, I'd suggest that the original poster invest first in lights and reflectors before getting new lenses. Successful still life photography is more about lighting than cameras or lenses.</p>

<p>Another vote for the 85mm PC. If you must use a DSLR for tabletop photography (really the wrong tool for the job), having shift and tilt makes a huge difference.</p>

<p>Nikon's manuals for the super telephotos specifically warn you to hold the lens and not the camera alone. I'd image picking the camera up vertically to get it out of a case (which may be unavoidable) puts less stress on the mount than holding the camera with the lens out in front.</p>

<p>My largest/heaviest lens is the 400/2.8 VR; I've maneuvered it out of the bag by holding the camera, but I'd never think of not letting the lens itself support the weight at the first opportunity.</p>

 

<p>Why do you want to shoot at f/22? As others have pointed out, at f/22, even the sharpest lens doesn't look that much different from a Holga (I exaggerate, but only a little). Diffraction is the primary cause of softness, not the glass or specific lens design.</p>

<p>If you're forced to shoot at f/22 because you need more depth of field, you have basically two options that will let you shoot wider. You can use a camera or lens that can tilt the plane of focus to be non-parallel to the film/sensor plane (that is, a view camera or a lens like one of the Nikkor PC-E lenses). This will allow you to keep objects on almost any plane (within the tilt range allowed by the camera plus the scheimpflug rule) in the same focus, at the expense of money. Or you can shoot at lower magnification (shoot wide and crop), which yields deeper DoF, at the expense of resolution.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, physics is not just a good idea, it's the law.</p>

<p>Don, what body are you talking about doing this on? It almost surely depends on the body.<br>

I've don't have a 500/4 AFSII, but I've used AF with a D3x and a D2x on a 300/4 + TC20E on high contrast subjects in bright light. (The results aren't anything to write home about, but it does work). But my old D100 just hunts and hunts with the same combo, no matter how bright the subject.</p>

<p>Arthur, the current 400, 500 and 600 all "feature VR II", although the lenses product names are called "VR" for some reason (perhaps because they are the first VR versions of those lenses).</p>

<p>My 400/2.8 "VR" is definitely a VR II, at least according to the manual and specs, and also has the same A/M and M/A function switch as the newly announced 300/2.8.</p>

<p>There seems to be a slow but steady trickle of the high end long Nikkors lately.</p>

<p>Last month I ordered a 400/2.8 VR II, which was similarly in the "no idea when" state, and got it two weeks later (via B&H).</p>