darren_cokin

<i>Remember that the preset aperture setting is in the lens; the lever in the camera holds the aperture open, and when you fire the shutter it drops out of the way until the lens reaches its preset aperture.</i><br><br>

When I read that I breathed a sigh of relief, as it would mean the precise position of the lever wouldn't matter, as long as it's always exerting spring force on the lens's aperture lever. But, how can that be true? The aperture ring (on my non-G lenses that have one), is locked at the max value. I don't think there is any other way for the camera to indicate to the lens a desired aperture. I doubt that there's an electrical signal from the camera with this info, because aperture coupling works even on lenses without electronics (on some camera models).<br><br>

No, I think on modern cameras where the aperture is set on the camera side, the adjustment of that lever must be an important factor.<br><br>

Darren

The other day I got sloppy changing lenses on my trusty ol' D100, and bent the

aperture coupling lever it seems. The result was, that if I tried to take a

picture at less than the widest aperture, the image would be overexposed, and

I'd get an "Err" message. (If I used aperture priority or manual mode, and left

it wide open, everything worked fine.)

Now that I'm home from my trip, I took a pair of pliers, and bent the lever

back. Everything seems fine. But... I'm concerned that if I didn't bend it

back precisely to where it's supposed to be, my exposures will be off. I.e.,

maybe it's not stopping itself down to exactly the indicated aperture.

I tried doing some tests with my various lenses, taking the same picture at

various apertures in Aperture Priority mode, and seeing if the histogram moved

from shot to shot, but the results were inconclusive, and that wouldn't reveal a

systematic error anyway.

Is there a do-it-yourself way to test this calibration and adjust accordingly?

I don't live far from the Nikon Service Center in El Segundo, so a trip there

may be warranted. But, I figure having them open the camera up to replace a

mechanical part like that wouldn't be cheap...

Darren

If what I remember from my D100 manual also applies to D200, than the "box of crayons" for Color Mode I has more flesh tones, so it's useful for portraits, while Color Mode III has more greens, so it's useful for landscapes.<br><br>

Many people may suggest you use Color Mode II, because it has more colors. Here's an article with a contrarian view:<br>

<a href="http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998">http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998</a><br>

<i>"Adobe 98 has the same number of crayons as sRGB, so by reaching out to more colors, you're sacrificing fine increments that are so important in shadow detail, for example."</i><br><br>

Does that SensorSweep brush from Copper Hill work as well as the Sensor Brushes from VisibleDust? Hellavalot cheaper.

I know the VisibleDust products are very highly regarded, but I never got one due to high cost, and the fact that the tried-and-true PecPads + Eclipse + Wendy's knife method works just fine for me on my D100. I've been curious about the static brush technology though, and hadn't heard of VisibleDust having any competition in the market until just now.

Richard - you have plenty of good leads to follup up on at this point. I suggest you ignore the last suggestion though; the pre-made SensorSwabs are too expensive. If you're going the wet route, get PecPads, and make swabs yourself by wrapping them around a suitable tool.

Darren

I've got nothing terribly relevant to contribute to this thread, but it reminded me of an anecdote... <br><br>

I had this same problem a couple years ago, trying to put some pictures onto my D100 to complete my halloween costume.<br><br>

I refused to wear anything ridiculous, but it <i>was</i> a costume party, and I wanted to go. Also, I wanted a reason to carry around my camera all night taking pictures of the silly people, without myself looking like some dork with a big camera. So, I just wore my normal clothes, but added a fake press pass I made, that said I was "Jimmy Olsen". (Superman's pal.) Whenever anyone asked, I would bring up a couple pictures of Superman on the camera's LCD, as if I had just taken them. <br><br>

After wasting an hour trying to get the D100 to display one of these JPEG's, I just gave up and took pictures of my monitor, as everyone above has suggested. Looked just fine.<br><br>

(Everyone complimented my costume, except for some comic book geeks who said I should have colored my hair.) <br><br>

Maybe this year I'll fill the camera with pictures of Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan, and go as paparazzi...

Hashim & Anil,<br><br>

Try changing your flash mode to "rear curtain sync". Then the motion blur will be <i>behind</i> the frozen drop, rather than in front of it.

<br><br>

Darren

A series of 4 shots of these two getting progressively more drunk as

the evening wears on is up <a

href="http://users.adelphia.net/%7Ewackyneighbor/VAC/albums/general/pages/25_two_sober_med_students.html">here</a>.<div></div>

If you've read the thread this far, I bet you'd really enjoy this article:<br>

<a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-view.shtml">http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-view.shtml</a>

Vivek,<br>

My tubes have 7 contacts. Pictured below. Yeah, VR usually works. Occasionally it starts jittering and won't lock, but usually it's fine. (Statement is applicable to both 24-120 and 18-200.) <br><br>

Haven't tried the AF so much. With these zooms, you don't focus with the focus ring, so AF is no help. (I bought a Novoflex macro focus rail recently, to move the camera back and forth.) AF might work with the 50mm f1.8, the only other lens I have that's compatible with tubes, but I haven't used that config very much, so I really don't remember. I think I pretty much still just moved the camera back and forth. <br><br><br>

Bjorn, <br>

Thanks for the follow up, and for clarifying your reservations on using the lens this way. When you wrote about blue fringing on your site, it was about using the long end of the lens on high contrast subjects, not about using extension tubes specifically. But, I do see what you mean, in the shot I posted above at f5.6. I don't see it on the f36 shot though. (But my eyes may not be as keen as yours.) <br><br>

Using a magnifying glass type filter on the front, such as the Canon 500D, may indeed be a better solution, but I haven't got one, so I can't say... I do have the Kenko tubes, so their usability with the 18-200 was of interest to me. I know a lot of people are buying this lens, so I though other photo.net readers might be interested too. I'm not suggesting it's an ideal macro solution, it surely isn't, but some of us hobbyist like to experiment, and make due with what we have. <br><br>

Although you just seemed to be saying it's a bad idea, Thom's statement might have led people to believe it wasn't possible at all, and that's really why I was impelled to post my findings. With some lenses they really don't work at all. (One example in my collection is the Sigma 30mm f1.4.)<div></div>

I've only had the lens a few days, so I don't have much else to say about it at this point. I kind of got it on a whim actually. Been reading all the positive reviews, and complaints them being out of stock, people on waiting lists, etc. I was surprised they had one at my local camera shop (Samy's, in Venice, CA). They said it was their last one. They were only asking $700 for it, which is $50 less than B&H. (And B&H doesn't have any.) So, what the hell, I got it!

Pretty unusual for them to undersell B&H! (For instance, they wanted $100 for the appropriate Nikon UV filter, which B&H sells for $60.)

I had been thinking about getting this lens prior to a vacation I'm taking this summer, but might as well get some experience with it before then. It will be the kind of trip where I won't be bothering with serious photography, only snapshots, and won't want to carry anything more than the camera itself. I think this new superzoom will be just the thing. Won't have to think twice about not bringing a 2nd lens with me. Until now in a situation like that, it's always been either the 12-24, or the 24-120...

It seems a bit redundant to hold on to the 24-120 VR after this new purchase, but I don't think I'm quite ready to get rid of it yet. We'll see how much use it gets in the coming months. One advantage is has is working a lot better with these macro tubes! It gets in a lot closer for some reason.

Without tubes, it can yield an image about 90% the size of the 1st baseline image above. But with the tubes, it produces an image 300% larger. (Recall, the 18-200 was only 150% larger.)<div></div>

Looks like some well respected people got it wrong.<br><br>

In the sidebar <a href="http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm">of this

page</a> Thom Hogan says:<br>

<i><b>No Converters or extensions.</b></i> The optical design of the

18-200mm means that almost any extension would put

the focus point inside the lens--I assume you don't want to focus on

the fifth element.<br><br>

Bjorn Rorslett says <a

href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AFS18-200VR">here</a>:<br>

It is also telecentric and adding extension to this lens tends to

bring the focus point inside the lens assembly, so using

it for advanced close-ups is not recommended. You can add a close-up

attachment on the front, though.<br><br><br>

Actually, it does work with extension tubes. I have the set from

Kenko, that includes 12, 20, & 36mm tubes. With all of

them stacked together (68mm extension), and the focus ring set to

infinity, the focus point is only inside the lens when

it's zoomed between 18 and 90mm. Zoom it beyond that point, and the

focus point moves out. At the limit of 200mm, the

focus point is around 6 feet away!<br><br>

This lens focuses remarkably close at 200mm without any extension

tubes, a foot and a half or so. Compared with that

photograph, if you put on the extension tubes and stand 6 feet away,

you'll have an image that is about 30% larger. As

you move the camera closer, and retract the zoom, you can wind up with

an image that is 150% larger, with your subject

right up against the lens. (Lighting without shadows will become a

problem.)<br><br>

I'll post some examples, and then continue my comments.<br><br>

Here's one without any extension tubes as a baseline. The silver

dollar is 1.5 inches across.<div></div>

Is rotating the camera hard?!

In general, it's best to keep things as simple as possible.

Darren

Okay, I am writting from Sunny California... So I can't really relate to your experience in any way... But why didn't you just use a "Soft Shutter" attachment? Any brand will do, Nikon's is only $7:<br>

<a

href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=37080&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">Nikon AR-9 Soft Shutter, at B&H</a><br><br>

Basically, it's a really big button, that you screw into the regular shutter button. Some think this minimizes vibration. (It won't help you on a D70 or the like, that don't accept a standard cable release, but it'll work just dandy on a D100!)<br><br>

No, this won't help you set the aperture and shutter speed if you like to shoot manual, but if you can live with one of the auto modes, I figure one of these could let you trip the shutter with even the thickest of gloves.<br><br>

What do you think?<br><br>

If focusing/zooming is a problem, you could use a pipe clamp or something to attach some sort of stubby handle to the ring, to make it easier to grip.<br><br>

Hey, post a picture or two. I wanna see some Tundra.

Psst!<br>

<a

href="http://binsearch.info/?q=nikon+capture&max=25&adv_age=&m">http://binsearch.info/?q=nikon+capture&max=25&adv_age=&m</a><br>

Shhh!<br><br>

Try it. If you like it, buy it.

You didn't say if you're on Mac or PC.<br><br>

Assuming PC, try <a href="http://www.irfanview.com/">IrfanView</a>. You'd have a few options to generate thumbnails there actually. From the main screen, you can do a batch conversion, resizing a bunch of images to the format and size of your choice. From the Thumbnail screen, you've got a few other choices. You can save those thumbnails to individual files, to one big contact sheet file, or have it generate a web album, with an HTML page displaying indexing the thumbnails. That's a neat option, because you can even put EXIF info (shutter speed, aperture, whatever) as captions below each Thumbnail. (Here's an example of that: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bvbqo"><b>http://tinyurl.com/bvbqo</b></a>)<br><br>

Darren<br><br>

PS. That's pretty neat that this forum will reject your post if you misspell the word "aperture". :-)