ted turner

Bjorns' lens reviews are great and he rates the 1.8 AF a little lower than the 1.4 AF. Now we all know about lens sample variations; not every lens from the same model and batch will perform exactly the same.

But here are a couple of reviews that may just help to cloud the distinction between the 1.8 AF and the 1.4 AF.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_85_18/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_85_14/index.htm

The 85mm f/1.4 Ais is attractive if you want to use it has a short range macro with a tube because it stays sharper than the AF version (supposedly) as you stop down beyond 5.6 or so. But for macro you could also just get the 85mm PC.

Of course, I'm now way off topic...

Ted

www.pbase.com/turnert

You guys are great! Thanks for all of the great tips and fresh ideas, like the 85mm f/2 AIS, 105mm f/1.8 AIS, 105mm f/2.8 VR micro (thanks Dave, that would be nice to have), and the 75-150mm (I have always been intrigued by this lens)

<p>Some of you recommended the 17-55mm; however, as great as this lens is, one of my Near Years resolutions was to not buy another DX lens. I would prefer the 17-35mm anyway for its resistance to flare. The extra reach of the 17-55mm would be nice, but the 12-24mm has to go in the bag and there is some redundancy with a 17+ zoomer. Aaron, the 28-70mm would be great with my 12-24, and I might just be able to justify sticking the 70-200mm in the luggage, but not carry it around all the time. The 35mm f/2 would be cheaper than the 1.4 AIS, for sure, and lighter.

<p>I will take at least one speedlight (I have several) for evening shots around the dinner table with family, but primarily for fill flash and dawn/dusk experiments (e.g., cool white balance for ambient with warming gels on the strobes). To be honest, I am not particularly interested in photographing inside churches or museums anyway, even if it was allowed.

<p>I have about 12GB worth of cards, but this will be a two-week trip, so I need to get a HyperDrive before I leave.

<p>For macro, I may just take my Canon 500D and/or one of my tubes (PK-13, PN-11) and screw it onto whichever lens will give me the best working distance at the time. I will also bring a CP and at least one ND grad -- these are sort of mandatory. My tripod will be my little Gitzo 1027 with Acratech head and RRS panning clamp. I will leave most of the accessories in the hotel most of the time and break it out only when I want to get away from the family so that I can do some serious photography (which will be often!).

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

I will be in Venice and Florence later this fall, so I�m trying to sort out my

travel kit. I�m only going to take one digital body, no film or medium format

gear this time, and among the bodies I have the D2X seems to be the logical

choice primarily because of the resolution, reach, and file storage options

provided by the HSC (and just because it�s the most versatile body I have).

I�m well aware of the inverse relationship between the amount/size of the gear

in the bag and the photographic pleasure/image quality while on vacation. It

seems like the more gear I carry, the worse my photos are (and I return with

fewer pics).

So�here�s what I�m thinking regarding lens choices for these two cities (* =

lens I do not yet own):

12-24mm Nikkor: Venice is cramped and I shoot wide a lot; this lens seem obvious

and it�s great for capturing candid, shoot-from-the-hip shots in crowded piazzas.

*35mm (f/1.4 AIS or f/2 AF): I�m strongly leaning toward the AIS, even though it

costs twice as much as the AF, but the focal length is really the point here.

I�m not yet sold on the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

50mm f/1.8 AF or f/1.4 AIS Nikkor (fast, small, and light and I use this a lot

already, even for short range macro with a tube or the Canon 500D)

Now, here�s the tough part that I need help with � the tele lens. As much as I

enjoy the quality and range of my 70-200mm VR, I just can�t see myself lugging

it around every day. I�m also not sure if I will miss the 150mm+ range for a

trip like this. I want more reach than the 50mm, lots of speed (faster than

2.8), and small size.

Option 1: *85mm (still deciding on flavor, maybe the 1.4 AIS and remember that

HSC gives me an effective 170mm field of view)

Option 2: *105mm f/2 DC (fast and creative with more reach for candids, but large)

For those of you that have traveled in these cities, do you have any advice on

lens choices? Again, I�m thinking that the 12-24mm will be the only zoom I carry

and I want to limit the rest of my lenses to 2-3 relatively small and very fast

primes. Also, does anyone know if there are current restrictions on photography,

whether it�s on the street or in museums (besides the standard stuff like the

use of tripods and flash)?

Thanks, Ted

www.pbase.com/turnert

I've experienced this problem as well, although it's been rather intermittent. If you do send your D2X to Nikon Service, please post a follow-up on the diagnosis.

Ted

www.pbase.com/turnert

<p>I make sure I turn VR off when shooting action (except when panning). I want to maximize the efficiency of the AF tracking to lock on my subject and I don't want the VR to slow things down. The VR is pointless anyway when shooting a 1/500, for example. It consumes battery power too.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

My D2H meter board failed at only 3K clicks. The free repair took about 2.5 weeks including ship time.

Ted

www.pbase.com/turnert

I have an SB-800 that fires at full power only and yields images that are underexposed by about 3 stops. I also have an SB-600 that won't power up at all -- it seems that the batteries rattle around inside, but nothing appears broken. I'm about to send both flashes to Nikon for repair.

<p>Speaking of Nikon gear problemsﾅI had my D2H meter board replaced (meter and AF failure) when the camera reached about 3K clicks. This was no surprise because itﾒs a relatively common D2H plague. But my D2H also had the "ERR" message problem that occurs during the first shutter fire after the camera has been turned on after being idle for awhile. This problem is not as prevalent as the meter/AF malfunction, but it has occurred on many D2H bodies and even a few D2X's. I reported the problem to Nikon when I sent it in for the meter repair, but they returned the camera without fixing it.

<p>I also had a D70 repaired last year for water damage, but I don't ever recall getting it wet beyond using it during a mild rain shower.

<p>Finally, I had a 70-200mm VR fail during a sports shoot. The aperture blades would not open back up after taking a shot. I had to dismount and remount the lens to reset it.

<p>I'm not complaining. I love my Nikon gear. But I never had any trouble with my film bodies or my older lenses and speedlights.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com

Both are clearly great lenses. If you don't need the reach, then I would choose the 17-35mm IF you frequently need to shoot strongly backlit subjects or if you shoot into the sun. The 17-35mm controls flare a little better.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

I was going to mention that it could depend on your 17-35mm sample, but you did say that you have tried two with the same results. The 17-35mm is stellar along the edges, but can have a soft center at 2.8 according to a recent review here: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/widezooms/widezooms1.html

<p>But you're testing these at f/8 and I would expect both to be very comparable at 28mm and 35mm, but the 17-35mm and 28-70mm may simply be strongest at their lower focal lengths.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

Well, I did forget to mention the Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5 AIS. Yes, it's a manual lens, it's not a 2.8, and it would be hard to find one.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

I might also add that you may find the 18-70mm or the 18-200mm VR lenses adequate for some of your work, particularly when traveling. They're slow, but the prices for these lenses is certainly right given their quality.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

Keep your 80-200mm. Or, if the 55-80 gap is just too much, then sell it and buy the 70-200 VR instead. There really isn't a seamless way to transition to digital and replicate the exact equivalent field of view with 2.8 lenses.

<p>You could get the trio: 12-24mm, 28-70mm, and 70-200mm. And speaking of the 12-24mm, the difference between 12mm and 17mm is more significant than the 55mm to 80mm gap, IMHO.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

Nikon Capture is a fantastic, but slow, program that is best used to apply global adjustments to your RAW files (e.g., exposure compensation and white balance). There are other great RAW editors, including Photoshop, Bibble, and Capture One. But many folks find that they get the best results from NC. However, you still need software for working in layers and for applying adjustments to select areas of an image (like enhancing the contrast of the sky and not the rest of the image). So having Photoshop is not redundant if you also have Nikon Capture.

<p>If you're an event photographer (e.g., sports, weddings) and you shoot in RAW format, and you need to process hundreds of files at the end of the day, then NC can drive you nuts with its speed unless you have a fast processor with at least 1 to 2GB of RAM.

<p>Nikon Capture AND Photoshop make a fantastic pair. You could also add a program that is better for ingesting files from your memory card, captioning and renumbering files, creating backup folders, etc. (e.g., PhotoMechanic).

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

Mr. Robinson wrote:

�In AF speed, Canon beats the heck out of Nikon.�

<p>This is one reason why these Nikon/Canon debates are pretty silly. Of course, here I am again participating in one.

<p>Yes, Canon does have VR in the longest glass. But Nikon AF is dead-on accurate and supremely versatile (which absolutely requires that you know how to select the AF options for the type of shooting you�re doing). I handled a 1D once and thought that my D2H was much better at locking-on in low light.

<p>And what about the ability to group focus points with the Nikon. I love this. It seems that with the Canon you have to use one focus point or the whole spread � but maybe this feature is, like many Canon features, buried somewhere in the menu.

<p>And what about the Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR? Wow! Too bad Canon stopped making the 200/1.8 L. Also, mount a 200-400mm on a D2X and shoot in HSC mode (for 400-800mm equivalent field of view) while shooting birds. Then tell me that you would prefer to lug around the heavier 1DM2 with a 600mm on it all day.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

Juergen,

<p>Have you had an opportunity to try any of Nikon's DSLR cameras and their wide angle DX lenses, like the 12-24mm?

<p>Many of us are very happy with what Nikon has been offering over the last several years and with the current selection of equipment I can't even fathom why anyone is still using 35mm film cameras anymore. Okay, I can think of only a couple of reasons, like a 5-hour exposure to capture star trails while on an extended backpacking trip.

<p>Not one client who purchased an image license from me last year asked if the photo could have been better had I used a digital camera with a larger sensor.

<p>I use Nikon gear because I think Nikon is actually ahead in the technology areas that mean the most to me. The most important of these areas are camera design; namely ergonomics, flash technology, power resources, and wide angle lens quality (yes, a 2.8 version of the 12-24mm would be better).

<p>If I was a photographer who makes a living shooting indoor sports in poorly lit gyms, like high school basketball and volleyball, where strobes are not allowed, then I might be using Canon gear. The Canon might be a better tool because I would be spending less post-game time applying noise reduction to the 1600 ISO images. More time in post means less profit. But the last thing I would care about is sensor size.

<p>If I was a fashion or architectural photographer, my tools of choice might likely be medium format digital backs instead of a Nikon DLSR.

<p>Buy, borrow, or rent a Nikon digital camera. If you still feel that the APS sensors are limiting your creativity and the quality of your images then try some Canon gear next. Finally, report back and tell us if Nikon is behind Canon.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

Yes, it does depend. But for the majority of what I do, my D2H would be the primary body because:

<p> -- Superior AF tracking and AF point distribution across the viewfinder.

<p> -- Unlike my D2X, the D200 can't shoot below its max. resolution when using RAW. I'm not going to try to process 800-1,000 10MP RAW images at the end of day. Compressed RAW files from the D2H are really, really great to work with.

<p> -- I prefer the larger, heavier body.

<p> -- More shots to a charge.

<p> -- I rarely shoot faster than 5 fps, but when I need 8 fps I want it available immediately.

<p> -- I don't know if the D200 supports hi-speed flash sync (for using fill-flash at shutter speeds faster than 1/250). If not, then this is a serious deal-breaker for me.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

Download Opanda iExif software, then drag a jpeg into it to see all of the exif data, including the total number of shutter clicks on your camera. The software doesn't work with NEF files. http://www.opanda.com/en/iexif/

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

If someone bought a D2Hs for sports work, for example, then I don't know why they would unload it to pay for a D200. It's not just about the frames/second, but the built-in vertical shutter and the crazy-fast and accurate autofocus. And when you shoot 1,000 images over the course of a day during an event, you will not want to chew through those 10MP files in post at the hotel that night on your laptop. The 4MP files are easy to process and they are plenty big enough for most work as long as you don't need to crop much. So, it depends on what you shoot and what you do with the files. For sports and photojournalism, the D2Hs will likely still be the top choice (or the D2X in HSC mode) but we haven't seen the D200 yet -- so I may be wrong.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

Mark is probably right about the sports and wildlife shooters. I use Nikon gear. But if I shot lots of indoor sports with poor, mixed lighting and could not use strobes, or if my bread and butter lenses are 400mm or longer (think wildlife applications), then I would choose Canon gear. For some 800+ ISO (and certainly 1600+), many prefer Canon.

<p>Also, if I was a studio photographer trying to compete with photogs using medium format gear, but wanted the flexibility of a DSLR, then I would (at least until the release of the D2X) have chosen a 1Ds for its resolution.

<p>By the way, I love Nikon color, lenses (particular my wides), the use of my AIS lenses on my DSLR bodies, iTTL flash and the CLS lighting technology, and perhaps most of all, Nikon design (light, smart, and efficient).

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

Lex is on the right track. Severe weather also means you need to protect your camera. Shoot with the lens you NEED to shoot with and just get a camera/lens cover. The ones by Aquatech are popular, though a little expensive (cheaper than a lens though).

<p>I use a Kata cover, see more Kata rain capes and such here: http://www.kata-bags.com/category.asp?id=61&perentId=4&ProdLine=4

<p>The only thing I don't like about my Kata is that there is no top port for attaching my speedlight. For light rain, I just place a zip-lock bag over my speedlight and drape a Domke cape over the camera and lens.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

Eric -- nothing wrong with D2X -- just got it. Sorry for the confusion. The D70 went to Nikon for repairs, not the D2X. But the timing of the D2H hiccup is good because had it happened a couple of months ago, then I'd be stuck shooting film because I didn't have the D2X yet and the D70 was being repaired.

Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

<p>

I purchased mine new at a better-than-fire-sale price ($1,850). Not sure if I will keep the D2H after the repair. The low resolution has been less of an issue than I thought it would be. The shadow noise and overall noise at high ISOs is another matter. The D2Hs is an improvment from what I've read, but the price is too high.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

Thanks Ellis. Most of the several dozen reports of this problem I've read about on various forums have stated that the AF failure seems to always occur simultaneously with the meter failure on the D2H. This is exactly what happened to mine today.

<p>Many thought the D2H should have been recalled for this problem. Nikon's recent service advisory, which addresses the problem by providing free repairs post warranty, was a good move.

<p>I haven't read any reports of the problem continuing with repaired D2H bodies or having occurred in the new D2Hs, so I will assume for now that Nikon has fixed the problem.

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

My D2H suffered autofocus and meter failure today, just a few weeks

after getting my D2X and getting my D70 back from Nikon for major

repairs. The timing was good I must say. Time to send it in along

with a malfunctioning SB-800 and a dead SB-600.

<p>The autofocus racks the lens in and out but can't lock on the

subject. I can meter in manual, but once I get the exposure right the

meter says that I should be several stops underexposed. In other

words, the meter is overexposing by at least 3 stops. My camera

suffered the 'ERR" message when the first round was fired on the very

first day I got the camera last December, so I had a feeling mine was

going to blow a gasket early.

<p>If anyone is keeping track of D2H failures, I just dropped a jpeg

into Opanda EXIF and it says only 3,196 clicks. For those keeping

track of serial numbers, mine is 2019xxx.

<p>My question is: does Nikon simply repair the camera with parts of

the same design? If so, the camera may eventually suffer the problem

again. Or have the problem parts been reengineered so that I can

expect the repaired camera to be more reliable?