kenneth_logan

Yes, Kelly, I'd estimate I've shot about 7,000 frames with this lens from 1/50th to 1/80th second in this hall on a tripod. Vibration generally is an issue with medium to long telephotos in this exposure-time range. I'm seeking far more consistent results (D70), and this goes far beyond issues of subject movement and slow shutter, I'm convinced.

My response immediately above has many question marks inserted where other characters had been. I had composed the original mostly in MSWord, then copied and pasted. So ignore many or most of the question marks.

Q: How do you use your tripod in the concert hall? Are you using an action head? Are you fairly far from the stage or do you go for close-ups with the 180?

 

A: Iﾒve used a tripod in lots of different places in the hall. Often Iﾒm about 30 feet from the subject(s), sometimes approx. 10-20 feet. Common denominator: the need to stabilize a long, moderately-heavy lens.

 

Item: ﾅit's not uncommon to be under 1/100 sec. at f/2.8 and 1600 ISOﾅ

 

Response: Wow! I generally shoot 1/60th at f/2.8 and 250 ISO. I would hate to think what the noise on the D70 would be like at 1600 in this top-heavy, artificial light situation. Speed 1/60th second is very vibration-prone with a long lens.

 

Item: ﾅa member of my team modified his 180 by using something from Kirkﾅ

 

Response: Would love to know just what the Kirk product was.

 

Ilkka said: Indeed, Burzynski makes one and I have their collar for the 300 mm f/4 AF-S which is excellent.

ﾅfrom a physics point of view the 180 mm can't effectively utilize a collar - the balance of the lens+camera combo would be around the bayonet which would mean that by introducing the collar, you actually de-stabilize the combination.

 

Respose: Bjorn Rorslett (naturfotograf.com) shows apparently the same collar as Ilkka mentions, and mentions it as a potential long-term solution but does not comment specifically on how well it works. He seems to imply that it is a good one, else why would he have depicted it as a solution? (Elsewhere in this same article he strongly criticizes various other designs.) So, Ilkka, would you mind elaborating? You say that the 300 f/4 AF-S collar by Burzynski is excellent: What part of ﾓexcellentﾔ donﾒt I understand? (;--) Seriously, it looks to me in a picture as though the width of the collar is minimal, which makes me dubious. Iﾒd love to have my dubiosity definitively debunked.

 

Also, Ilkka, I donﾒt quite see how balance point being around the bayonet would produce destabilization, at least compared with this lens hanging off the front of a D70 which is mounted on a tripod. Would you elaborate for this physics-challenged photog?

 

Finally, my interim ﾓsolutionﾔ has been to cut a block of wood, with a rubber or rubber-like insertable top, and to jam that underneath the 180, between tripod top and lens bottom, pressing the lens somewhat upward and reducing its wobble. The wood block has a flat bottom, but somewhat wedged top, so that it can pushed into place with varying degrees of pressure exerted. Iﾒm not eager to stress the mount in camera or in lens, though. Testing is in processﾅ

I'm looking for a super-stable, heavy-duty yet moderately-priced

third-party tripod collar for my Nikkor 180 mm. f/2.8. This could be

very important for the serious concert-hall photography I'd like to

do, where I typically need shutter speeds of 1/50th to 1/80th

second, wide open aperture. I would be very appreciative of leads as

to brand/model/availability new and especially used (good to

excellent condition, appearance a secondary consideration).

I appreciate having both responses above. I thought perhaps the glossy-friendly black had a sheen or gloss in it whereas the matte black did not.

For the Epson R2400 printer, I'm wondering what ink set is used for

black/white or black/grey/white printing when using matte paper.

Obviously the printer uses the photo matte black ink cartridge, but

the user does not change out the light black and light light black

cartridges for matte light black and matte light light black

cartridges.

 

So does the printer print matte black ONLY using the photo matte

black ink cartridge, or does it use all three cartridges: photo

matte black, light black, light light black?

Yes, it does appear that they are the same thing, as I saw by matching product numbers in the "What's in the Box?" area with single-purchase product numbers elsewhere on an Epson website. Well, that seems great.

Can anyone tell me how much usable ink the Epson R2400 has in its

shipped-with-printer starter ink cartridges versus full, complete

Epson R2400-type UltraChrome K3 ink cartridges purchased separately?

One-third? Half? Or what?

A writer above stated his impression that the D200 at 1600 ISO compared favorably with the D70 at 800 ISO. I'd love to know whether, in terms of noise, the D200 at 500 ISO compares favorably with the D70 at 250 ISO.

I'm considering purchasing either the R1800 printer or the R2400

printer, and I'm wondering whether the smaller minimum ink droplet

size (1.5 picoliter) of the R1800 makes it more susceptible to

nozzle clogging than is the case with the R2400 (3.5 picoliter

minimum ink droplet size). I'd appreciate having insights on this,

or references to industry comment about this issue.

One way in which I suppose that printer could differ considerably in ink consumption may have to do with how many, and which, inks it has available. For instance, if it has to synthesize light gray from existing multiple inks, versus forming light black from an ink cartridge that is "light black", it seems likely that it would use more ink. By that reasoning, the more useful options the printer has, the less total ink it may need to use to do the job.

 

Epson says:

 

2400 color = 520 pp. @ 5% coverage

 

1800 color = 400 pp. @ 5% coverage

 

I found no similar comparison figures for the 7800, for instance.

 

According to their website, cost of ink cartridges for 2400 and 1800 is the same. So the 2400 seems substantially more cost effective. This may be because of the 2400's "light" cartridges included in the eight: "light magenta", etc.

 

But I'm seeking more input as to how the 2400 compares with the 2200, though, in terms of ink usage. Any thoughts?

I understand the Epson ®2200 is heavy on ink consumption, the ®

4000 consuming much less (about half as much, I think). I'm

wondering whether the R1800 and R2400 also consume much less ink

compared with the ®2200, and if so, how much less ink. I'm

considering buying either the R1800 or the R2400.

Both responses above are helpful. Of course, I'm not wanting smeared ink in case of accidental placement of moisture on the print surface--and the consequent attempt to wipe the moisture off. I suppose if beads of water are allowed to simply remain and evaporate, they would be likely to leave some faint residue, but I really don't know.

 

I do note that Epson uses the UltraChrome K3 inks (appparently without gloss coat) right up through at least the 9800 pro printer, so apparently they have a high level of confidence in the non-gloss-coated approach.

 

Further insights as to the gloss-coat (R1800) or non-gloss-coat (R2400) issues would be greatly appreciated. Smearing? Fingerprinting?

I'm considering buying either the Epson R1800 or R2400 printer. I've

used Print Guard UV Water Resistant Lacquer before for 7600 output.

I'm wondering if issues such as water-solubility and fingerprint

protection and UV protection are solved in the (differing) ink

characteristics of one printer vs the other. I've been told by a

teaching photo pro that spraying is not necessary with the R1800. Is

it necessary with the UltraChrome K3 ink system based R2400? For

that matter, with the R1800? Why or why not?

 

One application would be personal work, another would be for small-

scale clients in a semi-professional small business.

Wealth of responses! I've tried to note carefully all of the major points. I didn't respond last night in part because I became busy shooting and designing, though I made notes of various ideas in the thread. Let me respond now.

 

In this situation, I agree with Ilkka: "I get by with the D70 by taking an absurd number of shots per number of keepers." I've shot some 10,000 frames in this concert hall over approx. one year (approx. 22,000 frames overall w/ D70). You could call me an upper intermediate to advanced photographer who reads voraciously on the subject and does a fair amount of small work-for-hire in that concert hall shooting recitals and such.

 

I usually have used a fairly-substantial tripod zealously. Cable release not an option w/D70. I think my shutter-button technique is probably not the main problem, though it may occasionally contribute. Flash, strobe or otherwise, and AF assist light generally out of the question.

 

Vibration? I've tried bracing the 180 f/2.8 various ways but none so far seems to solve the problem consistently. I sometimes provide upward and/or downward pressure on the lens to dampen vibration--still out-of-focus photos often. Would love to buy an effective third-party collar for the 180 f/2.8 and mount the lens directly to the tripod--any ideas to suggest what and where to buy?

 

Success rate? W/D70 from about 30 feet from subject in approx. EV 9 light w/180mm. f/2.8 lens, great focus achieved about 3% to 5% of time using center focus sensor.

 

Why do I suspect the focus module itself more than vibration and camera shake? I've photographed in the same hall ca. 15-20 feet from subject (not in concerts) with similar tripod setup with some 500-600 watts of supplemental front lighting, and seem to have had an importantly greater success rate that way.

 

But other evidence seems to favor the vibrational theory, particularly because I'm shooting at 1/60th, which is not yet quite quick enough to be out of vibrational danger on a tripod. I've also had much-more consistent focus results in outdoor light with this lens, and with indoor flash, with the advantages of higher shutter speeds. This could imply an important problem with camera vibration at 1/60th sec.

 

I feel stuck: with the D70:

the viewfinder and my eyes together are not good enough in this light for me to clearly see slight deviations from focus, and 105 mm. or 135 mm. f/2 lenses for more focusing light would sacrifice a lot of telephoto advantage for my basic shooting style;

the central sensor is the only cross-hair one and has no low-light second-level sensing system like CAM2000, implying focus-and-recompose (and not using the other sensors) in many situations, a process which moves the plane of focus;

higher-ISO performance is not good enough that I feel free to use, say, ISO 400 or 500 regularly to allow smaller aperture and/or faster shutter.

 

Is the D200 my answer? I've waited EAGERLY. But now I understand that it, too, will have only one central cross-hair sensor and no second-level low-light sensing like the CAM2000-based D2X. Those facts may be deal-breakers for me regarding purchasing it.

 

Is it not asking too much that a $1000 camera from Nikon should nail focusing consistently in EV 9 light, with reasonable technique being used? What is more important in a $1K camera than ability to focus consistently, either through a great viewfinder for manual focusing or through a great AF system?? Give us one or the other! I am open to change any aspect of my technique if it is the culprit, but I'm searching to know just what is the problem or combination of problems.

 

I will continue to try to digest the major ideas of the responses to this thread. I do appreciate having the benefit of the insights: people have given a lot of time to response. Yes, Dave, I do find your effort to give me honest information useful. Ilkka, I'd love to know about that third-party focusing screen...Others, I've gained a lot from your time in responding!

 

Further responses, now that I've given more of the context of my original question, would be very welcome, too.

 

Ken

I've done a lot of concert shooting w/D70 in a concert hall at

approx. EV 9 (LV 7-2/3 = ISO 250, 1/60th sec. at f/2.8). Sometimes I

get superlative results at this setting, but often I do not. Many on

this site have shot at around EV 9: I'm wondering if anyone has

clear evidence that the D70's MULTICAM 900 focusing module (without

low-light mode) is or is not up to consistent focusing w/ a top-

quality telephoto lens (in this case, Nikkor 180mm. f/2.8 AF ED IF).

 

I'm aware of shallow depth of field at f/2.8, etc.: I have in fact

made a list of approx. 15 things that may be contributing to the

problem and am tentatively thinking that, of this list, the D70's

focus module may be the fundamental problem.

 

Does this kind of light really require the two-light-level system

that the D2X has? Is 9 EV a low light level for the D70? What do you

think?

I inquired of Nikon directly about shutter actuations for the D70. The answer back was that this was proprietary information/not available. I find it curious, then, that Nikon has announced the D200 shutter as "tested to well over 100,000 cycles"; why not disclose the information about the D70, too? Or has it not been tested? I would have to assume that the D70's rate would be significantly less than 100,000.

I have found that using a 50CC syringe is better than using a bulb, for cleaning the D70. The bulb approach just did not have enough power. I secure the syringe like crazy just OUTSIDE the camera's bayonet ring, then blow away. This has been pretty successful. One has to be very careful not to touch any part of the camera with the syringe during these powerful blasts!

 

Ilkka, please enlighten me as to your comment above regarding f/16 not being a shooting aperture on a DX-format camera. Is there a serious problem with this that those anticipating buying the D200 should know about? Why?

Shot today w/ same camera, different battery, 145 exposures without any of the problems seeming to recur. So hopefully the problem was indeed just an excessively-discharged battery! But that LCD blinking seemed bizarre. Only low battery??

I shot D70 for several hours intermittently, with problems. Help,

please!

 

1. Toward end, the picture-taking button locked;

 

2. at least once the top right-side LCD did not clear as usual the

display of most of its current camera settings when the camera's

on/off switch was turned off.

 

3. at one point the back image LCD flashed briefly and repeatedly a

white or light gray screen, on for maybe 1/8" then off, flashing

about one time a second, like a strobe on an airliner.

 

Battery power seemed to be at the fullest setting the D70 shows,

although of course it actually became diminished; same battery

throughout. Removing/reinstalling battery eliminated at least some

of the problems, but not all permanently. After D70 sat for about 25

minutes, I took about a dozen test shots with none of these problems

apparent.

 

What was probably the problem? Just low battery? Is that enough to

cause such a thing as the bizarre back LCD screen blinking episode?

 

Thanks.

I've shot about 20,000 D70 frames. I'm still frustrated by some

focus issues with great glass like 50/1.8 AF D and 180/2.8 AF ED

MultiCam 900 focusing system. Particularly:

 

1) Does anyone have clear confirmation of D70 mirror-slap blurring

between approx. 1/4 sec. and 1/60 sec. exposure time?

 

2) Does anyone have clearly better performance using any of the four

outer focus regions rather than focus-and-recompose using the

central focus region? (Focus-and-recompose inevitably shifts the

focal point--even slightly--that one focuses on, either forward or

backward from that point focused on. Also, the central focus

supposedly has both vertical and horizontal focus sensing, whereas

the other four have only one directional focus sensing.)

 

3) Does it make any difference whether one seeks focus from a point

farther away than the desired focus point versus from a point closer

than the desired focus point?

 

4) etc....

ExifTool looks to me like a tool which builds some real complexity into the process of getting the distance information that I'm looking for. Isn't there something out there that simply allows the user to open a particular image file or files and readily display the focused subject-to-lens distance that the "D" lens sends to the body of the camera?

Would anyone confirm that Nikon View does show distance-from-subject information (presumably a translation of the code delivered by the "D" function of a Nikkor "D" lens) whereas Nikon Capture, an application that I use that apparently is a successor to Nikon View, does not show distance-from-subject information?

I'm interested in knowing at what distance images were focused,

with "D" type lenses, on my D70. Is there an EXIF reader for Windows

XP that translates the code that contains that information into a

simple, user-friendly readout of distance-from-focused-subject

information?

It makes a lot of sense to try the 50 f/1.8.

 

Try shooting at no more than 1/90th of a second in case some of the issue is mirror slap. Some SLRs, apparently, do a lot better in this respect at around 1/90th or 1/125th than they do at 1/60th or especially 1/30th of a second.

 

Your USM use is pretty conservative. I would up the percentage and try reducing the radius. In Nikon Capture a setting that I like is 100%/5 radius/3 threshhold.