duane_galensky

I think it was Mike Kirk who makes a 90 degree bracket for an F5 that

fits Arca. It keeps the center of the lens fairly consisitent with the

horizontal orientation, keeps the camera over the head (not dangling

off to one side which can literally trip the tripod over if not

careful) and even has cutouts so you can change batteries without

taking it off. Other manufacturers make them too, but they're not as

nice. If I had an F5, I'd have one of these gadgets, no doubt.

You seem to need something to round out your longer focal length

range. Why not consider the 70-300 ED zoom and a 5T diopter? That

way, you'll cover more shoting situations with a reasonable

expenditure. Putting a diopter on a zom essentially gives you a

'free' macro focusing rail...a real handy inherent capability.

Hmmmm..I have a 25mm AF tube...I think it's Kenko...I've used it

irregularly and never noticed any vignetting with shorter lenses.

It's conceivable that the image circle from the 500mm won't permit

25mm of extension, or that the particular tube you've got somehow

blocks the light path. Does Nikon indicate any limits for extension

of the lens? I don't have the 500's instructions handy (and they're

probably in Japanese anyhow.)

 

<p>

 

To make matters worse, it's not only the AF one loses: it's the groovy

metering with the F5 (and for that matter everything else but an F4 or

an FA).

Martin,

 

<p>

 

As an avowed Arca-Swiss customer, I have a question relative to your post: among nature photographers, there seems to be a reverence for the older design Monoball. Are you familiar with this, and if so, to what do you attribute it? Nostalgia? Or is there something about the newer designs that is less advantageous, for example, a smaller tension adjusting knob perhaps? (that seems to be one difference I could detect visually.)

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

My informal, non-scientific survey (I keep track in my head :-) ) indicates an overwhelming support among nature photographers for the precepts outlined by FoundView. As such, I'd infer that most of these folks understand the intent, and aren't dwelling on manufactured 'corner cases' that perhaps serve to test the concept on an intellectual level, but don't really bear much resemblance to what actually goes on in the area of imaging and nature photography.

 

<p>

 

Cynics are of course granted the freedom to refuse to 'get it,' and those that subscribe to the ethic are also free to distinguish their product with the mark. Seems like an acceptable arrangement to me....let the market decide. Perhaps it will gain in popularity, perhaps not. But for now, I for one appreciate any and all efforts to make distinctions based on how images were created, even if those efforts are not perfect in every last detail. The fact that a lay-person may not understand or care is irrelevant to me. It adds to my own personal appreciation of what I'm consuming as a viewer, and I daresay the appreciation of the others much more knowledgable in the field than I.

The B1G is fantastic. I think the B2 may be a bit fragile since it's two concentric balls (no wisecracks!) I think the B1G is rated to something like 200 lbs!!

 

<p>

 

Linhof makes good products, but frankly, my experiences with their smallest Profi haven't been as positive as with the Arca products. For example, this particular model gets real loose and flops around wildly. The Arcas have progressive tension (meaning they increase tension at a given setting as the ball flops over to help prevent a mishap) and are much less sensitive to small adjustments in ball tension. The drag on the Arca heads is beautiful. I put a Kirk clamp on mine...does the Linhof clamp work with standard plates? That would also be an important consideration and isn't obvious to me.

Assuming that the 600 is of the f/4 variety, I can't see putting it on anything less than a larger 300 series, or preferably a 410 Gitzo. Those lenses are too expensive to smack against some rocky outcropping. The largest carbon fiber Gitzo might be a good choice also. While the leg collars may be seen as inconvenient, I think they're ultra stable and reliable if used properly.

 

<p>

 

There's a reason that so many take the trouble of hauling a Gitzo into the woods...hundreds of professionals can't all be wrong. And while it's interesting to experiment with alternatives, and while I personally fancy myself as an independent thinker, sometimes the consensus is so overwhelming that it seems risky to buck the trend without a lot of very compelling reasons.

The biggest hurdle in becoming a Gitzo aficionado I think is remembering which way *tightens* the collar, and which way *loosens* it. After making that mistake a couple of times and trying to un-do an overly clamped leg section, one tends to learn quickly. After that, the raw hands syndrome magically goes away...

 

<p>

 

I've bent, bruised, banged, and dented less worthy tripods including the regular Bogens. I've managed to chip the paint in spots on one of my Gitzos but it's still working great.

 

<p>

 

P.S. - forget about the center column...buy a tripod that's tall enough for you without one.

Simple...don't turn the lens to the right! :-)

 

<p>

 

I have to say that I've never had this problem...I have the same tripod with the next larger head (B1G.) Perhaps the increased contact surface area between the head and the flat plate prevents this.

 

<p>

 

I might suggest something a bit radical in some circles...why not *loosen* the panning knob and allow the head to rotate freely?

Would you rather walk to work or carry a lunch? :-)

 

<p>

 

I can burn as many rolls as I can carry with one body and one lens...if there's something worth photographing with the lens I've got. One body, one or two shorter lenses, one larger telephoto, one teleconverter, perhaps a close up diopter, needed filters, and ten rolls of film might be typical. I don't know if that's efficient or not because I don't know the definition of efficient. I don't walk very far, either.

 

<p>

 

If I'm shooting wildlife, the lens and camera is on the tripod and the tripod is on the shoulder and the other stuff is in a waist bag. If I'm shooting macro and scenics, the big lenses stay home and everything goes in the waist bag, and my smallest tripod is lashed to the bottom of it. I try really hard to carry only things I intend to use frequently. I've recently switched over from prime lenses in rough doubles of focal length (24, 55, 105, 180) to two variable aperture zooms, which I suppose is more efficient by any standard: weight, bulk, flexibility to pain ratio, etc.

My Gitzo 410 and ball head gets checked in a canvas Domke bag designed for lighting. It has a heavy duty wrap around strap (kudos to Steve in San Jose for this one.) I've never had any problems with it yet (knock on wood.) I usually put a heavy sock on the ball head just in case. It's about the size of a small golf bag, or a ski bag for a very very short and lightweight person. Domke makes smaller ones, too.

 

<p>

 

I put my smaller tripod(s) into the duffel I pack my clothes in. I'm sure that this gives the x-rayers fits, since of course it's on the very bottom of the bag and they'll have to wade through a lot of stuff to examine it. This can be particularly brutal for them on the return trip if the clothes are 'ripe' (snicker) If you remove the head, I'm sure you can find a duffel bag to pack your stuff in that'll take the tripod.

Flower shots and insect shots strike me as different problems, unless the insect is on the order of scale as the flower and you want to include the same amount of surrounding area.

 

<p>

 

As stated previously, hand-holding is not really an option unless the image is dominated in flash light (which I personally find unappealing unless done with great care.) For moving insects, a dual flash setup (ratioed to separate the key light from the background light) with a long focal length and handheld might work best, however, because the subjects generally move around a lot. For flowers, which hopefully are stationary or can be made so once you block the wind somehow, a shorter focal length is sometimes nice, and from a tripod with a soft, diffused, natural light. In both cases, the lens is stopped way down so maximum aperture is not really a consideration.

 

<p>

 

I would agree with the above posters and suggest the 70-180 ED zoom micro. Alternatively, since you have a zoom macro of sorts, the 105 micro puts you kinda in the middle of the range if 1:1 is important and you can only consider one lens. With money no object, I might pick both the 60 and the 200. Since you already have a Sigma zoom, I'd recommend sticking with the Nikkors, particularly for prime lenses, since their quality is top notch. I can assure you that if you do, you won't be posting about looking for a replacement because the lens is 'sharp but not sharp enough.'

I can't speak to comparisons among large telephotos, except to say that the 300/2.8 is much more contrasty and sharp than the 500/4. Howvever, such comparisons aren't very constructive because of the sheer difference in lengths (similarly in comparing shorter Zeiss lenses to a 500mm of any manufacture.)

 

<p>

 

Shun's comment I think was directed at work from my 500/4P plus TC301 plus Kirk brace plus long lens brace (camera to tripod leg) combination. It can create acceptably sharp images, but I try not to rely on it a lot. I shoot it from a 410 with a B1G. A 600/4 with a 1.4 is undoubtedly 'better' than a 500 with a 2x, albeit 'shorter' as well...but for me, I'll stick with the 500 plus 1.4 and try to get a little closer if I can.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're asking what can be done about the inclusion of tripod legs in the frame when composing with ultra-wides.

 

<p>

 

I cheat: I put the tripod away and hand-hold sometimes. At 14mm, everything seems to be in focus at apertures f/8 and smaller. Plus, it takes a mega camera shake to register on the film at that angle of view. With even mediocre handholding technique I find that the images are tack sharp (uh, I mean, as sharp as the Sigma lens can get) over a very wide range of shutter speeds.

I've shot most of my landscapes with a 180/2.8 ED, not for the speed, of course, but for the quality and the ability to isolate. I'd think an 80-200 would be ideal, but I don't have one. I did buy a 70-300 ED Nikkor recently, and am looking forward to trying it out. I have had some success with a 24mm also, as well as a 55 micro and a 105 micro.

 

<p>

 

I think that generally speaking, wide angles are harder to use successfully since they almost demand a statement about near/far relationships (either that, or it seems to turn out as a sweeping, rather uninteresting vista with everything pushed far back in the frame and rendered small.) For example, Art Wolfe made a lot of images with a 20mm, and all the ones I remember are vertical compositions with stuff in the foreground. Almost all his other landscapes were in the 80-200 range, I'd reckon. Shaw, too, seems to be in that 50-135 range a lot.

No, I haven't gone on any, however, my general rule is that unless the trip is specifically organized for photography, or unless you don't mind photographing only very occasionally, you may run into conflict with other participants and guides. Seldom do folks want to put up with a single person who wants to work carefully (that is, slowly) and at such odd hours. I'm sure just about everyone will have a point and shoot for an occasional snapshot, however.

I suppose if the foreground is dark and the sky is light, and you darken the sky two stops, the automatic printer may crank up the exposure on the print overall. However, the relative brightness when comparing those two areas on the "with ND" print to a print without the filter is certain to have changed. It may be difficult to tell because of the wider latitude of the medium (and it may not be as necessary to bother with the filter for precisely the same reason.)

Nikon tells me that the 14E and 20E have wider elements at the point they mate with the lens. As such, I'd be reluctant to start grinding optics to make everything fit. Is that your experience?

I use a Calumet resin filter, two stop, soft edge. Sometimes I wish I had a harder edge. The point, though, is that the edge of the grad needs to match the edge of what you want gradded. Irregular shapes are difficult; Singh Ray has various mountain shapes, etc. But the resin filters are a bit more immune to shattering in the field. I don't use a holder: I handhold it. But the camera is always on a tripod!

Both my Nikon telephotos came with a gel holder. To me, that's the easiest way to go, if Canon offers a similar arrangement.

I shudder to think of what one might photograph with such a device...but be kind to wildlife! :-)

My simple, wild-a*s guess is that if you tried the latest Sigma 400/5.6 design and didn't like it, that an older design lens will probably not cut it either. The only decent older 400/5.6 design I'm personally aware of is the Nikkor, and they're darn expensive, even used.

You should close down for dark skinned subjects, but by how much? If the subject is really dark, closing down what would be considered 'sufficiently' to render that dark area 'correctly' relative to its surroundings will lose a lot of details. Since slide film has about a five stop range, it's best to avoid exposing anything more than a stop and a half or so either side of mid tone, in other words, meter some mid-tone in the scene in the same light as the subject and open up a bit. Same goes for light subjects: if you expose a white swan 'properly' it'll be a white, featureless blob with a beak. So, you'd stop down a bit from the technically correct exposure to place the subject more in the middle of the dynamic range of the film.

If you must stick with the Elan, I'd consider the Sigma lens. However, don't overlook used manual focus lenses in longer lengths. I've heard of folks picking up Nikon 600/5.6s or under $2000. Or perhaps you might find an FD Canon 500/4.5 on the cheap.

I use both a B1 and a B1G. No compromises. The drag increase as the ball 'flops' is a lifesaver. When they clamp, they clamp, no B.S.. They pan as smooth as silk. I'm sure there are other heads which are acceptable, good even. But at least with Arca there's no crap shoot involved in choosing one, nor is there any need to balance positive and negative opinions about the same product (as far as I've heard personally.)