kenneth_logan

Here's wishing/hoping that the rumored D200 will NOT be in the $2000 area. Competition already offers 8mp CMOS, etc. at around $1000. I'd like to see Nikon go head-to-head with the 20D in the region of $1500 or less. I've shot D70 a lot: I'm looking for lower noise (so probably CMOS), better AF accuracy (I shoot mostly 50/1.8 and 180/2.8 ED), maybe 1.3x sensor, maybe ISO 100 range...

This is a response to Dave's comment about decline of 180 f/2.8 performance after f/11.

 

I've gotten some amazingly-sharp results at f/18 with this lens (AF version), shooting at close range, even at 1/15 second in a difficult tripod setup (meaning that some extra tendency to vibration may have made it even more difficult to get those amazingly-sharp results). So with your comment about the lens' decline after f/11, I am wondering if your comment applies at medium and long distances rather than at close range.

I appreciate having the benefit of the advice. The image posted is tremendous!

I'm a serious amateur nature photographer and have been shooting in

the Rockies for about four weeks in June and July. I may be able on

Tuesday, July 26 to spend much of a day in Glacier National Park (in

conjunction with a train pickup in Whitefish) and would be in

serious need of advice for fine photographic spots, most likely

those that are on the west side of the park, perhaps along Going-to-

the-Sun Road. If I could work in just one or two spots in the park--

all the better. I'm most interested in powerful expressions of the

park's boulders, glaciers and lakes (by contrast with most of my

images in the Rockies recently) but am widely interested in advice

on a variety of photo opportunities.

 

I'd very much appreciate having advice.

Yes, it makes sense that a hitch in the gear mechanism would hinder AF in a certain region, but I don't think this is the situation here. I seem vaguely to remember that someone reported such a problem on this forum or perhaps on another forum, and I'm seeking confirmation as to whether or not this is a known weakness in one of the great Nikon prime lenses. Anyone with further insights on the 180 f/2.8?

I have shot a lot with the Nikkor 180 f/2.8 AF D ED on the D70. I

struggle with focus at a distance of approx. 30-35 feet from camera

(and have much less experience with significantly-different

distances than this with this lens). Does anyone have experience

with this lens to know if it has a particular problem delivering

images in focus in the vicinity of 30-35 feet from camera?

I have a serious question that relates to my concert-hall photography--not trying to flame or be flamed, please. My "formula" exposure is ISO-equiv 250, f/2.8 and 1/60th second with the D70. I'd like to know from a Canon user specifically how the D70 compares with the Canon 20D or the new Canon 350. For instance, if I'm shooting in the above light at ISO 250 on the D70, is that about like ISO 400 on the Canon 20D or 350 in terms of mid-tone noise? Or at just what ISOs is the noise produced much the same?

 

(Believe it or not, 2/3 stop of exposure difference could be very important to my concert work.)

I've used a small piece of Velcro to stabilize creed, though I'm not ready to recommend it unless one is very careful to remove sticky residue faithfully from the lens barrel after each use and before moving the barrel significantly into its housing over the area where the Velcro was (to prevent the stickiness from getting inside that housing and gunking it up). You can stick the Velcro on the front of the lens cap, then pull it at the focal length needed (and in approximate focus position) to secure the movement.

 

It's worked well for me: YMMV.

Very interesting answers. Is the 105 DC (and presumably the 135 DC) able to function normally, meaning without any unusual effect on out of focus areas nor softening (or glowing) of the entire scene?

With the Nikon 105mm and 135mm DC lenses, does the defocussing

control work only to decrease the depth of field (increase the out-

of-focusedness of background), or can it also be used to increase

the depth of field (increase the focusedness of background)? For

example, can DC be used to shoot at f/2.8 with the dof of f/4 or

f/5.6? If so, that would be an extraordinarily attractive feature to

me in my concert work.

I've been reading some of the late renowned outdoor photographer Galen Rowell's writings about photography. The 75-150 E zoom figures importantly in his lenses of choice, not least because of its lightness. In fact, the one image that apparently was his all-time best-seller, the palace of the Dalai Lama with a rainbow, was taken with the 75-150. He used the lens with Nikon F3 equipment. As often noted, the zoom mechanism does tend to be loose, i.e. it slides very easily. Good examples of this lens can be had for approx. $100-$150: I got mine for about $85, as I recall.

A useful test could be with a non-zoom lens at f/8 and no more than +2EV exposure compensation, with no third-party curve applied. When would you ever want to take a mid-toned subject area up +4EV?

My impression, too, was that Capture applies the in-camera settings, then allows the user to change them. The Capture 4 (4.1) manual says re NEF, on p. 79, "...adjustments to settings are not applied to the original image data, but are instead saved separately in the same file." It then says, "As changes to settings are only applied to the original image data when the image is saved in another format, this minimizes any loss of image quality..." So what about the original in-camera settings? When do they come out of hiding (that mysterious "separate place in the same file") to be applied? I'll experiment, but perhaps someone will offer a ready and definitive answer.

Given images made using the standard D70 RAW + large/basic JPEG

combination and the "vibrant" in-camera setting, NEF versions opened

in Nikon Capture 4.1/4.2 appear less vibrant than JPEGs.

 

This seems the opposite of what I expect, because it seems that

Capture would read and execute a "vibrant" tag in a NEF file, but

might not be able to do so or to do so as well in a JPEG file. So,

please, why does the NEF seem less vibrant than the JPEG? Does

JPEG's compression generally produce greater vibrancy?

Ilkka,

 

These shadows are too midtone to usually be appropriate to repress adequately through applying a mid-tone darkening curve. I'll see about posting an example. I'd appreciate your continuing interest...

Concert question number two: I shoot a lot in a highly-incandescent

hall where I've found white-balance on the D70 at 3100 K to be just

about right. However, I struggle (at ISO 250 or 320) with a magenta

of reddish color cast with "black" items such as tuxedos (and

especially from the shiny lapels of men's tuxes). Adjusting NEF

files with white-balance up or down and hue changes does not seem to

successfully eliminate this problem. I would be very appreciative of

any solution to take blacks to black, particularly if the solution

is an in-camera adjustment, but also if it is in post-processing.

I do a lot of concert shooting in a highly-incandescent hall where

I've found white-balance on the D70 at 3100 K to be just about

right. However, I struggle (at ISO 250 or 320) with a subtle,

strange pea-soup green/yellowish color cast in some mid-tone

shadows. It's a pretty sickly effect. I'm probably picking up

hardwood-floor-reflected light, and that may be the only cause. Does

anyone know of a counteractive solution in-camera, preferably before

post-processing but in post if necessary?

Todd, I suppose that this is an aside to the main conversation, but do you consider the 180 f/2.8 ED AF lens also to be "brutally sharp"?

I have one, but I've been wondering whether I need a 105. Do you have a point of comparison to offer?

John, what do you mean by "put a focus point"? Do you have a focus-target card that you manually place or have someone hold? Also, could you refer us to the thread or article that you mentioned regarding recomposing and its relationship to focus results?

 

I'm interested to make a focus card for myself. While I have some clear ideas on this, I'd like the benefit of experience for anyone who uses such a card as to what the shape(s) or design on the card should be. Should such a card be white with black shape(s) or design on it, or something less contrasty? I'm shooting D70.

Does the Nikon DG-2 finder magnifier fit the D70 without any

adapter? (I've tried to research for an answer before asking.)

Any thoughts on how well the Nikon DG-2 2x viewfinder magnifier

works with the D70/D100? Is this a significant help given the less-

than-fantastic focusing capabilities of the D70, especially in low

light?

Michael Borland wrote recently re the D70, "be aware that the AF

points may not be where the viewfinder indicators say they are. On

mine, the center AF point is significantly below the viewfinder

markers. Knowing this helps to get better results." Does anyone else

know whether their D70 AF is above or below or to one side or the

other?

Before we Nikon users get too excited about a large number of Google hits on "Nikon" we may want to remember that a number of Google hits (logically) relate to help with problems with Nikon equipment, and to needs for help using the equipment, and to complaints, and to speculation about future improvements.

This has become a mentally-stimulating discussion! Yes, I know about T-stops in the context of extension-tube and bellows loss of light from the physical f-stop, having shot with both. I just acquired an ED AF 180mm D f/2.8 used and had the impression with it that perhaps I was actually getting more light at a given f/stop than I had with the Nikkor 200/Q f/4 that I've used a lot in a given concert space. I appreciate having at hand the benefit of this extensive discussion!

With Nikon extra-low dispersion (ED) lenses, is there any exposure-

value light gain through use of ED glass? If so, how much? For

instance, a non-ED Nikkor 200 compared with the AF ED 180 F/2.8 D:

at a given aperture and comparable image size, does the ED actually

admit more light to film or ccd? 1/3 stop more? 2/3 stop more? or...

I understand that aperture is a mathematical relationship of opening

sizes. It stands to reason that glass charactistics would affect

actual transmission of light.