kenneth_logan

I'm asking about the inconsistency I've experienced with the Nikon D200

combined with the SB-600 flash. I can take two shots of the same basic view,

with maybe 5% variation in the frame, no variation in camera settings, and get

significantly different flash exposures. With Nikon's reputed flash accuracy,

I'm wondering why such variation occurs. I'm about to do an important press

coverage with D200 and SB-600, and I'm wondering if my experience is similar to

experiences of others with this combination or whether I have malfunctioning

equipment. The SB-600 was new as of around the first of May, 2006.

 

I'd appreciate having insights/help.

I had startlingly quick service from the California Nikon Service Center. From the time of my approval of the service until I had the camera, it was approximately 48 hours--and I live in Michigan!! A particular service representative had communicated with me several times before the approval, and apparently she contributed to the expediting from the approval forward.

I've studied the problem more--it is a problem both in the normal setting and in the macro setting. Attempting to focus on a water tower approx. 1/4 mile away, the lens seems not to focus from approx. 24-50 mm. and approx. 85 to 105 mm., but to focus between approx. 50 and 85 mm. at least to the extent that the in-focus green light comes on.

 

Seems there are no other problems possibly related to the accident, beyond the focus issue.

 

Since the lens was insured, the question has to do with whether or not a blow to the lens is reasonably likely to have caused the problem, or whether it was perhaps coincidental that the lens took a moderate blow and showed the focusing problem. Further insights would be greatly appreciated.

While on an international trip, I knocked my Nikkor 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 AF lens

against something while entering a room. Shortly after, I noticed that it

refused to come into focus at the long end of its range: say, trying to focus

on something beyond approx. 150 or 200 feet from the camera. As I do not

understand the mechanics of the lens well, I'm asking whether it is reasonable

to suppose that the blow caused the focus problem. I'm also wondering WHAT

might be knocked out of alignment or otherwise displaced to cause this problem.

 

These are important questions regarding resolution of the damage, so I'd

especially appreciate having feedback.

I have about 10 large Photoshop-format temp files on my hard drive.

The files' names are in the format "Photoshoptemp[number]". I'm

wondering if they are safe to delete, or whether they are rather

files necessary to the reconstruction of PS files that are not

otherwise stored on the disk.

 

Each was created in Photoshop Elements 2 or 3, and when I tried to

open several in Elements 2 and 3 I got the following message each

time: "Could not open... because it is not the right kind of

document."

I tested the same D200 with the same lens (180 f/2.8 D AF) with spot, center-weighted, and matrix metering (presumably 3D color matrix with this AF D lens), this time with the slight variation of basically of adding about 4" of pencil (maybe 2% to 3% of frame) at frame left to focus on, off-white wall as basic background. Metering was about the same: exposure compensation of 0 resulted in an average value of approximately 180, rather than approximately 127 as I would expect for a mid-toned rendering. It was aperture priority with a setting of f/5.6 or so (2 stops down from wide open).

 

I also tested same combination at 0, -.3, -.7, -1.0 exposure compensation, lawn grass in sun, matrix metering. The most-balanced exposure, according to the histogram, was -.7 or even -1.0.

 

Well, maybe this D200 just has a meter calibration situation leading it to seek to overexpose. If that's consistent, it's no great problem to exposure compensate. I really wonder, though if it will be consistent.

 

Any further insights or corroborating experiences with this model's type of metering?

I'll try center-weighted and spot and see what happens and report back in! I think that "middle gray" (whether 18% or 13%) should equal approximately 127.

I'm trying to understand the metering of my new D200 as I anticipate

an important photo shoot overseas.

 

I shot a fairly-uniform off-white painted wall, exposure

compensation 0. The shot registered at an average of approximately

180 on a 0 to 255 scale. (The in-camera histogram shows it as

approximately that, as does Nikon Capture 4.4.) I would call that

approximately 1 stop overexposed, because I think that this should

yield a result around 127 on the scale. I do have that right, don't

I?

 

Now, varied-light scenes seem to do pretty well with the matrix

metering system, though I'm still checking that out.

 

So--why would this fairly-uniform surface meter so strangely?

Arnab,

 

That would be approximately $300 not including the head. I'm thinking seriously about the 3021, although looking at a basalt Gitzo 1297 or 1298 that looked mighty attractive. Testing side-by-side with the 458B, it seemed that the Gitzo was substantially more stable at a particular height

I just acquired a Manfrotto 458B Neotec tripod. Wanting something

extremely stable after using an old 3001 with lots of leg flex, was

attracted by the 458B's 17+ lb. weight-carrying rating in a fairly-

lightweight tripod. Its legs are set for 25-, 43-, 73- and 90-degree

openings. The 25-degree opening does not seems very side-to-

side "rickety" (not stable), and the 43-degree seems quite wide for

my concert work with a DSLR and a 180 mm. lens. Leg setting around

35 degrees might be perfect.

 

Yet I notice that the Gitzo Mountaineer Reporter series has 24-, 55-

and 90-degree settings for legs: again, nothing in the vicinity of

35 degrees.

 

I'd like to stay around 5-6 pounds max. tripod weight (plus head),

and not exceed about $300. Does the choice of the 458B make sense

for stability, given other possible choices?

In Nikon Capture 4.4, placing the cursor over a spot yields two very

different values, in, for instance, the following specifics.

1) The Info Palette reads R206 G166 B0, average 159 2) The Curves

readout at the bottom of the graphic display reads 124 for both

input and output.

 

Assuming that the Curves readout is also an average, why is it 124

compared with the Info Palette's 159? That's quite a difference:

close to 1/2 stop of light difference.

 

What do I depend on when spot-checking light values in NC 4.4?

Longer lenses are subject to image-blurring vibration effects, in general, importantly more than are shorter lenses, especially in a tough zone something like 1/4" to 1/90" in shutter speed.

I'm considering buying the Manfrotto/Bogen 3420 telephoto lens

support to use with the Nikon D200 and the 180 f/2.8 AF ED lens, as

well as perhaps with a 500 mm. reflex Nikkor and maybe the 75-150 E

series zoom. I'm after great stability.

 

Does this lens support really help with vibrational and any other

sort of stability? Is it worth approx. $60? Are there better options

for reasonable prices?

I'm not certain about compatibility, but if the Sandisk Extreme 3 4gb is compatible you would get approximately 640 RAW + jpg on the card.

I appreciate so much having the response. Deleting the selection worked!

I've been working on a publication project with a deadline just

passed. Working in Adobe Photoshop Elements 3, I saved a photo

selection and then did further editing on the larger image. I later

tried to save the saved larger-image file as a .tif, but found that

the image that would open, say, into Microsoft Office Picture

Manager was only that of the selected portion. APElements 3 could

open the entire image into itself, though. I wonder whether, if I

submit this image to the newspaper, whatever software program they

import into also will only show the saved selection. The overall

file saves and displays okay as a .jpeg, but I prefer not to

threaten quality by going to .jpeg.

 

Any ideas as to what the problem is? I'd appreciate help. I need to

try to turn this in at about 8 a.m. EST on Thursday, March 9.

With the D70, at least under pre-2.0 firmware, it seemed to me there was considerable latitude as to what the green light accepted as being in focus. That is, one could move forward and backward quite a bit and the green light would still stay lit. So I like the precision that I assume that one could have with KatzEye--getting those lines to be exactly aligned--like with the F3HP split focusing screen that I used to use.

Michael,

 

How do you get such a nifty "frame" around your image?

The D70 still is not recording to the CF after I did a logic reset using the small push-pin reset button on the bottom. The resetting of the date/time confirmed, I think, that the overall reset occurred. The problem remains. Much obliged, Curtis, for the idea, which sent me searching and led me indirectly to the location of that tiny reset button.

 

Armando, maybe I'll have to get out the F3HP for the concert!

 

Robert, yes, it logically could be a loose cable. I appreciate knowing of your experience.

 

After reading Robert's message, I locked up the D70 mirror and took a careful look around the mirror box (only from the exterior, front side). Fortunately I do not see a cable loose in that area (where presumably a loose cable might do huge damage to the filter over the ccd).

 

Anything else for me to try?

My D70 has stopped recording images to compact flash cards (three

different ones tried). I have done a menu reset. I have updated to

firmwares 2.0 A & B, formatted a card freshly under firmwares 2.0 A

& B. The D70 also refuses to record images to the computer using

Nikon Capture, though Capture is able to show current camera

settings per normal. I have had this problem trying to shoot with

two different batteries, both of which seemed to show normal charge

levels.

 

The camera sounds as normal when a shot is attempted. If the CF card

inserted has no photo files, once the shutter is activated the

display reads "THIS CARD CANNOT BE USED". The CF card bay "busy"

light does not light up.

 

I'm supposed to shoot a concert Sunday night. It is now Saturday

night. Does anyone have something else that I can try or should know

about this situation?

As a concert-hall photographer, I'm following this D200 thread with considerable interest due to D70 issues I've had with focus quality. Locking onto focus quickly and definitively is one thing; getting it exactly on focus is another. I've had real problems with the "classic" 180 AF ED IF f/2.8 trying to focus at approx. 30 feet in light good for about 1/60th sec. f/2.8 and ISO 250 (so about EV 9). Is the D200 lots better than the D70 in this regard?

The late Galen Rowell used this lens for one of his most famous shots, a rainbow and palace shot.

 

I have one. It has been my impression that zoom creep is normal for this lens.

One university photo teacher/professional photographer recommended to me upsizing using an alternation of "bicubic" and "bicubic sharper" settings. A recommended increment is 110% each time. Photoshop Elements 3.0 has "bicubic sharper"; Elements 2.0 does not.

 

A related question, though: Is it better to do all upsizing with a totally post-processed un-"sharpened" image, or is it better to have basic, minimal post-processed sharpening added to the image before the upsizing process begins?

Andy, why not shoot both cameras at ISO 200 and then report the results? I know that one could argue that the "native" sensitivity of each sensor should give an apples-to-apples comparison, but I'm interested to know what happens with the D200 when it's "native" sensitivity is upped (amplified, to use a musician's term) one stop equivalent to 200 ISO. What happens to sharpness then?

 

I'm of the understanding that the D70 has a plenty-enough sharp sensor. I've seen razor-sharp output from it. But getting the input to that sensor sharp is a BIG problem, in my estimation and based on extensive experience.

Does Kirk make such a collar for the 180 f/2.8? What is a good business from which to buy a Kirk product? I just checked three places without success (bh, adorama, thecamerahunter.com).