cicchetti

<p>Thanks everyone.<br>

What I meant when I said "compensating" was this:<br>

After seeing that shooting out of the box was not producing desired results all the time, especially with contrasting landscapes (i.e. brighter skies and darker mountains-which interestingly it states in the manual it does not handle well), I started experimenting by either dialing down exposure comp or increasing shutter speed, increasing f stop values for aperture, etc. None really gave me the desired result I expected.<br>

As in my other bodies I've used (The D70, D200 and D2x), all shot great out of the box with little or no changes and I thought this would do the same.<br>

The D300s seems to overexpose and blow out skies on many shots and doesn't seem to be able to be "smart enough" to get the settings right, so after checking the image on the LCD, I usually have to shoot a few times, experimenting with settings.<br>

I think it captures colors and details very well and is faster than the D200, however.<br>

Is there any tweaking that any of you landscape folks have done with the D300s? (I am assuming the "guts" are substantially similar to the D300 in this regard).</p>

 

<p>Hi all,<br>

I've had a chance to shoot with a borrowed D300s for a week or so and without getting into too much detail, in comparing the initial shots to those from my D200, many of the D300s shots seem overexposed. I know the base ISO is 200 vs 100 on the D200, so I thought I was compensating sufficiently, but I find that when using either Aperture Priority or Shutter Priority, most images from the D300s are blown out to varying degrees (particularly the sky, but again, I haven't spent a great deal of time with it). As such, I've found myself retaking the same shot over and over in manual until I get the right shot.<br>

Is this a common complaint?<br>

Subject matter has been mountain landscapes, some wildlife. Lens used was the older 18-70mm, <br />f/3.5-4.5 circa D70 era, which has always been great on the D200 for general use.<br>

I've also had some focus issues, where the camera didn't seem to want or was able to focus.<br>

Any thoughts?<br>

 </p>

<p>Hmm, No I don't have access to another without going to a local store. I'll try and see if I can find one online or on CL to test. I recharged them again this morning a couple times and I have had intermittent success, so whether it is the charger or camera, something seems like it is loose or needs to be cleaned, etc..</p>

<p>Yes, all genuine Nikon OEM and couple of years old, but I think I would rule out a battery problem, since they were all working fine then all of a sudden all not working!</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

Yesterday, I started having some trouble with my D200. For seemingly no reason, the battery, which should have been fully charged, displayed as full then was displaying as empty on the body LCD and the camera shut off..<br>

I put in a new battery which was also fully charged and seemed to work fine for an hour and a dozen shots, then the same problem happened and it was showing fully charged one moment, then it displayed as empty on the camera LCD. Now, after charging three different batteries to full, I cannot get the camera to work. I thought I had a faulty battery, but after the same result from all three, I am assuming it is either the charger or the body.<br>

So, has something gone awry with the body? Is the charger fautly (despite seeming fine)?<br>

Anyone have any thoughts here? I've owned it for 4+yrs and have some 70k shots from it and never have any problems with the body at all.</p>

<p>Hey guys, you're comments are all valid. Thanks. <br />I think I will hang on to my D200 for a bit longer while its still kicking.<br>

Agreed on performance on anything above ISO 400, even 400 is a stretch on some photos,<br />especially when I've seen full frame samples at 1600, 3200 or higher. I do have lenses that will happily fit well on FF, though if and when I get one I'll need to get a new super wide to take advantage of the FF sensor, as my 10-24 is a DX lens.</p>

<p>Thanks guys,<br>

This is all very helpful. Having not been in the market in a while, I've gotten pretty used to the D200, though though with its shutter coming up on 100K, and seeing what's out there, got me thinking...as my D70 had started acting weird around this usage point. I may just pick up a super wide lens.<br>

I won't be doing a wildlife focused trip, until probably mid year (unfortunately), so I may revisit what's out there then and see what the replacements look like.<br>

Has anyone had any issues with SD cards? They seem flimsy compard to CF cards.</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

There has been much discussed on comparing and contrasting the D300s/D700 and D7000 in recent threads and I've read most of them, but how about a more dated question in comparing these to the D200 (I know, many more updates since then so seems *some* upgrade is warranted).<br>

I've used a D200 primarily since it was new and am contemplating getting a new body in time for an upcoming trip.<br>

I have a trip coming up where I'll be doing mostly landscape shots, a lot of dawn/dusk work as usual, <br />rainforest photos and possibly night sky photos if the weather cooperates. I won't be doing much wildlife at all this time so I am leaving my telephotos at home.<br>

I also am aware of the aging design of the D300s/D700 and that both will likely be replaced in 2011. The D7000 appears to be the most updated but seems more of a consumer update to the D90 and seems less robust relative to even the D200. I am concerned it may not withstand being bounced around in a pack all day or deal well with a wet environment like I've put my D200 through. It also doesn't use compact flash which is a bit annoying as that's all I have, so would have to buy all new cards if I were to go that route.<br>

My question is: it worth getting a new body now? Is there enough material improvements over the D200 to justify it (in any of the three bodies above)? <br>

Thoughts/Suggestions?</p>

Hi all,

 

I wanted to put out a question regarding digiscoping and the use of

Nikon D-SLRs. Has anyone out there had luck using your D70/D200/D2x

with a Swarovski/Nikon/Zeiss scope?

 

There has been a lot of press on using the Coolpix 990 with varying

degrees of success and image quality, but not all that much with D-

SLRs. Is vignetting an issue with the SLR vs the 990? Most of the

scopes seem to be around f10 so low light situations I assume would

be challenging.

 

Also, as far as scopes, has anyone used the Nikon field scopes with

your D-SLR? Do you maintain the autofocus capability with this

combination and adapter? I imagine when using an aftermarket

scope/adapter such as Swarovski you would lose autofocus?

 

Thanks in advance for any input.

 

Rob

Thanks for your input everyone. I appreciate it. This appears to be one instance where stock Nikon is better. The factory Nikon batteries have a small circuitboard embedded on them, where the clones do not, though not sure if this impacts their ability to charge or function. As Lex mentions, one was DOA.

 

To answer the questions of why not spend an extra $55, well, if the two operate with the same performance, as in all of my past experiences, why should you spend twice the price for the same performance? You shouldn't. But, in this case, it appears, that the clones do NOT offer the same performance as the stock models especially with the sophisticated hardware and as such, the OEM models are the preferred route.

 

Thanks again.

 

Rob

Hi All,

 

I wanted to get some feedback from those using those camera's taking

the EN-EL4 (D2x, D2H etc.). I have a question regarding the

replacement batteries (the non Nikon ones):

 

I purchased a couple of these replacement batteries - the ones that

are made in China and have either blue or silver labels, which run

roughly $50-$54. In short, they are useless. I've returned them

three times for new ones and they are unable to charge in the MH-21

charger.

 

After about three seconds, all the lights in the charger blink and

continue that way regardless of what I do. Has anyone figured out

what to do here? Or, is the answer simply to buy the $100 Nikon ones

instead?

 

I've used these no frills batteries in other versions for EN-EL3 and

earlier ones for coolpix cams and they all were fine. But, the EN-

EL4 clones I've used are junk; very frustrating. If anyone has found

a way to calibrate them and get them to hold a charge, please let me

know!

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Rob

Hi Mal,

 

I've purchased from Adorama and they are a reputable, stand up company. I have never purchased from them online, as they are just a couple subway stops away from me so, I just take the train there. I can vouch for their reliability in person.

 

Rob

Hi All,

 

It appears that Nikon has discontinued their Coolwalker product.

 

I've checked past posts on this subject and they appear to verify

that. Has anyone heard anything or have any evidence to suggest that

Nikon will be coming out with a new improved model (faster, greater

capacity, longer battery life)?

 

I've used one for the last year and although it would be more

helpful if it held something like 80+GB, I've had no problems with

it. I would like to get something with a greater capacity, but if

they've exited the business, I will have to look elsewhere at other

products.

 

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Thanks everyone for all your input, you've all been helpful. I'll contact the copyright office shortly.

I see, so basically, I should get them copyrighted with the US Copyright office, but can do so with a blanket sort of coverage and not need to do them individually? I've recieved conflicting information regarding costs of copyrighting - is there a flat rate for copyrighting them?

Hi all,

 

I have a basic question about copyrighting images. I have not really

found the answer on other posts here.

 

When selling your image via whatever means you do so, or making them

available to the public (a website or electronic gallery for example)

is the general consensus for those photographers out there really

boil down to a binary proposition, meaning either;

 

1. Make sure that you build into the licence

agreement/disclaimer/invoice, the proper legal usage for the photo

and not actually copyright the actual image with, say the US

copyright office. Or, perhaps include a Digimarc

visible or digital watermark on the image; Then, if breached, rely

on our legal system and your documentation for retribution

and damages compensation...OR;

 

2. Do you have for each and every photo that is intended for public

usage/viewing or sale, filed and copyrighted with the government

with a unique identifier for each image. (This seems very costly and

a very drawn out way to do things)

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Rob

Thanks for your feedback guys,

 

I actually might have found the issue. There was a file psicon.dll which seemed to have problems with XP. I deleted it and now appears to work fine! So, we'll see what happens.

Hi all,

 

I am having a bit of an odd problem and am hoping someone has

experienced something similar: I am using Photoshop 7 and having

Windows Explorer hang and effectively crash whenever switching

from "details" view to "thumbnail" view, when viewing my photos via

Explorer. The files are not that large (under 5MB each).

 

It involves Photoshop 7 and a Dell desktop PC with XP. I mention

desktop as the problem doesn't seem to occur on my Dell laptop,

which consequently, has all the same software (including Photoshop)

and slower processor and 1/4 the amout of RAM. The laptop can

routinely do the same thing with files over 10MB with no issues

hanging up.

 

I've isolated the issue to when Photoshop is installed (not even

open) and have reinstalled/uninstalled several other programs

repeatedly to arrive at Photoshop as the culprit. It is very strange

as this does not occur on other PCs with one quarter the amount of

RAM and much older Pentium chips.

 

The PC in question plenty robust enough, having a Pentium D with 4GB

of RAM and virtual memory set at anywhere from 2GB to 6GB. The video

card has 256MB Memory. Everything else runs fine and plenty fast

enough. It happened on another PC as well, another Dell. The Dell

tech people are pretty useless here.

 

I am thinking perhaps there is some other way to set up the Scratch

disk? Or, perhaps a quirk with PS7 and how it works with Dell

desktop PC and XP?? I've never had this issue before and never had

to put the scratch file on a different drive (other partition).

 

I am pretty sure there are no insidious programs (virus, adware etc

as the problem)

 

Thanks for any help anyone has!

 

Rob

Haven't mated it with a 1.7x, but I've used the 200-400VR with a 1.4x tele and autofocus worked fine throughout the focal range, image quality was good. I'm currently working through another focus related issue in a certain contrast situation, but nothing to do with the tele.

 

Ideally it will be during a bright day or on a subject that's not going to sprinting away in twilight since you'll need to compensate for the extra length (to 560mm fully out). Make sure you have solid support if using medium/slow shutter speeds.

 

Rob

In case any of you are in the greater NYC metro area and happen to

see this add or similar ones on Craigslist in your city, beware, it

is an offshore scam - see below link:

 

http://newyork.craigslist.org/que/ele/113159944.html

 

A few of you have been looking to get one cheap, but in this

instance, you will probably get what you pay for.

 

Though it may seem common sense to avoid such obvious schemes, I

just thought I would alert those who might not be aware.

Hello all,

 

I was wondering if anyone out there has experience using Nikon's

adapter that allows the use of a DSLR and one of their spotting

scopes. I've read a couple past posts on digiscoping but nothing

seemed too specific on this.

 

Has anyone used this setup with any newer bodies (D2X, D70) or, with

Swarovski glass and similar adapter for that matter? I've *heard* of

some good results but have no experience firsthand.

 

Usage would be for longer range wildlife (out to 300 yds+) and

viewing birds of prey from usual (usually far!) distances.

 

Nikon link is here:

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/digiscope.php?

group=15&subgroup=152&num=3

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

Hi everyone,

 

I moved into another apartment recently and there happen to be

hundreds of pigeons outside my new place on a daily basis and I got

to start thinking, this would be a great area for a Peregrine and

would love to get some shots of one.

 

I recall there being a few sightings near the Brooklyn and Verrazano

Bridges and also on a couple buildings along 5th. Has anyone

recently seen any pairs nesting in the city?

 

I've been watching a few Red-Tailed Hawks in Central Park recently

and wanted to inquire to anyone in the know as to any other birds of

prey in the park or nearby.

 

Thanks.

Hi Paul,

 

First question - has this happened on other photos you've taken with the setup you're using? If not, then it is likely due to something in your setup this time.

 

Is it repeatable? Meaning, does it happen every time with this setup?

 

Was the paper totally flat? It could be caused by uneven paper, hence the different focal points. Was the camera/lens aimed perpendicular to the subject? Or, was it shifted off center on a diagonal?

 

Are you are using autofocus? If you have the focus mode set on dynamic area, it might be the case that you accidentally hit the round selector on the back of the camera (D2x) which resulted in the focal point being moved to one of the left side "x's" which would result in such an image shown here.

Just out of curiousity, did you print the 24"x20"'s with the D2X or D70/D100? What DPI were they printed at?

Thanks Guys for your input again. Very much appreciated.

 

Here is a cool site I ran into while living in Sydney:

 

http://www.aquabumps.com

 

Basically a local photographer focusing on surfing and the beach scene in Australia. Some pretty cool shots, updated daily. I thought you would enjoy the site.