cghubbell

Removing a warm camera from under your coat, where it's highly humid, and exposing that

humidity to the cold will not be pleasant when the frost shows up. If it were not highly

humid in your coat, then I'd agree it would be ok to remove the camera... Go ahead and try

it, just make sure you have a spare camera to work with.

The absolute worst thing you could do would be to keep the camera under your coat and

remove it to take photos. You want the camera to stay at outdoor temperature... It's ok to

go from warm to cold, indoors to outdoors, but don't take the cold camera back indoors

or it will condense and end up with frost.

 

When you head indoors have a large ziplock freezer bag available. Squeeze as much air as

practical out of the bag and leave it sealed for 1-2 hours after you go in so the camera can

warm up to room temperature. Same goes for any additional glass you are bringing.

remember to take the flash card out of the camera first so that you can download without

waiting for the warm up (flash cards won't cendense dangerously).

 

You may want to have a set of batteries and change them quickly... You don't care about

condensation on the batteries, so keep them warm in an inside pocket and rotate them in

the camera.

To begin with, anyone who told you that the 18-55 Nikkor was noticeably superior to the

18-70 is probably spending too much time reading stats and not enough time shooting.

For that matter, I'd add that those stats are of questionable origin. At any rate, The

18-70 is an outstanding lens in every measure. If you don't personally know which lens

you need, chances are your technique is more relevant than your equipment.

 

The cheapest way to accomplish your objective would be to purchase a close-up diopter,

or "close up filter". It looks just like a filter, screwing on the end of your lens, and lets you

focus at closer distances. Don't skimp here though - I'd recommend buying the Nikon

brand for its optical quality and use of two elements where many diopters have a single

element.

 

Good luck!

Forget the meteorology and math of it. If it's substantially colder outside than it is inside

(like in the Winter), cover yourself with simple and cheap insurance. Put your camera/lens

inside a freezer bag when you come back inside and let it acclimate for an hour or two

before opening the bag. Better yet, leave the camera dn glass in your car and bring the

batteries and memory cards inside while everything else stays at temperature.

 

It's only the warming you need to worry about - not the cooling.

 

You can also do a simple test - take something like a heavy pot that's made of metal and

set it outside for a few hours, then bring it in. After a few minutes look to see if there's

ocndensation. You now have a benchmark.

If you really want the shot badly, and were using a tripod, and have Photoshop CS2, you

could consider the merge to HDR functionality. It works in some places, and does wierd

things in others. The bottom line is that you tried to shoot a scene that had too much range.

 

Next time, meter the brightest spot you want to retain detail in, then the darkest spot you

want detail in. If BOTH don't measure within your meter, then you need to wait until the sun

gets lower, use fill flash, or otherwise "deal" with the lighting.

I second the suggestion to consider a bag which carries more than just photo gear. For short hikes I'll usually bring a shoulder bag for convenience, but for a true day hike into more remote areas, or mountain climbs, how do you carry rain gear? extra summit layers? lunch for the trail?

 

I purchased the LowePro Rover AW Plus, and found it to be the pefect bag for me. It's a bit much for short hikes where a shoulder bag will do, but for true excursions where you're a few hours from civilization it allows you to bring a reasonable assortment of camera goods (up to a 300mm) and a reasonable assortment of food/gear to make sure you're safe as well. I always wonder how folks use the nature trekkers and manage extra layers - it's friggin cold on top of most mountains even in summer, and those photo-only bags just don't carry anything else.

 

In the end, to each their own!

Yes! That's the one. Drove me nuts!

Just wanted to pass along some feedback. I just just perusing the

forums when a Star Wars ad banner starting making constant blaster

noises. This had to be the single most annoying experience I've had

since I first encountered pop up windows with casino ads on the Internet.

 

When I'm reading about Nature photography there's nothing like a

hostile take-over of my sound card to kill the buzz. How about a

policy that ads on PN can not make noise?

 

Thanks,

Chris

The D70 is a fine body for close ups. Like other aspects of Nature photography the virtual telephoto effect can be nice.

 

Remember that the more things you stick together, the worse off you'll be as there is always a price to pay. You'll loose stops with the extension tubes (but not optical quality) and you'll loose both stops and optical quality with a teleconverter.

 

I've recently seen prints from a D70 with 70-200 f/2.8 VR and a TC-17E, and they were quite nice. Not quite as sharp as the lens alone, but you had to scrutinize to tell.

 

If you really want all that extension, I'd suggest you look into close up diopters, specifically a high quality set like those made by Nikon which have multiple elements. They will be MUCH cheaper and you won't loose stops. Those diopters won't be as sharp as a macro lens, but they'll give your 70-200 VR some new legs, and with careful technique you'll get very nice shots.

 

Depending on what kind of Nature you plan to shoot, you might want to skip the Micro-Nikkor 60mm. Nice lens, but not much working distance. That would be ok for some flowers, and inanimate objects, but you'll scare off many bugs. It also has the limitation of having a wider field of vision which makes it more challenging to keep a clean background.

 

The 105mm is probably the best starting point as it can be hand-held much easier than the 200mm and costs considerably less. However, if Nature close-ups is really your objective, the 200mm is ideal. I saved up for a few extra months and bought the 200 instead of the 105, and I'm very pleased with that decision. It is also recommended in John Shaw's Close Ups in Nature, which is by many accounts one of the best resources for macro photography.

 

Hope this helps...

These days you can buy a high quality PC and hardware / performance-wise they will be comperable. It mostly comes down to how you work. Some people like a cluttered desk, some like a clean one. Some people study well with music in the back ground, others like it quiet. Some find Window's methodology compatible with their workflow, others find Mac to be more conducive to getting work done.

 

I can get work done in either place, but as a lng time UNIX guy, I find Mac to be more in line with my way of thinking. The only real differentiation I've seen is that Macs have a more coherant hardware picture, while getting a new gizmo for your PC often requires reading a zillion reviews, and having your own hardware knowledge. Nothing wrong with either approach, just different.

I've used Mpix for *many* prints. Mostly 8x12 that I upsampled to the proper DPI and dimensions. Every single one has come back stunning, and they've turned it around in record time. I'm very pleased with them.

It's not a firmware update. The I/R sensor is on the front of the camera and cannot be used from behind unless the signal is bounced off a frontal reflector.

 

As for nerds designing it, I think not. No doubt, the remote is a pain if you are used to a traditional shutter release, but Nikon got too many other things right on the D70 to write off its design. At its release time it was a real break through in the market. The D70s shows me clearly that Nikon listens to its users, as its refinements are subtle, yet very functional.

While I don't appreciate Ballet myself, I respect it as an art form that I haven't observed enough to appreciate the intricacies that make it exciting. On the other hand, I don't particularly enjoy viewing portraits, but after forcing myself to spend some time doing so, I began to appreciate certain styles that stood out.

 

Having spent considerable time learning what little I know about Nature photography, I can say that there is much more to it than appears at the surface. A statement I'm sure applies to almost any form of photography.

 

Sure there's "Nature for the sake of Nature" which is more documentary than visionary, but don't discount the whole genre. If you aren't interested in it, then look at something else. But don't discount it just because it doesn't appeal to your current aesthetic.

Fantastic shot David. I shoot birds all the time, and never get sick of 'em. If people don't want to see birds they should be looking at other categories than nature.

 

As for the ratings... Who cares? Walk around your local craft show and see how many people take pictures that good. Just because you get a few bad numbers form anonymous Internet people shouldn't be cause to get bent out of shape.

 

After looking at the comments I see a few respected people who took the time to give you good feedback. What more could you hope for?

Unless you are pretty amazing, I'd agree with you about avoiding manual focus. It can be done, but it requires a bit of anticipation and a lot of luck. However, it *is* possible to get in-flight shots with a long lens, depending on what your definition of long is.<p>

 

I shot <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/3229916>this landing seagull</a> as well as <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/3229919>this soaring gull</a> using to long end of a 70-300 f/4. The first shot was at 250mm and the second at 240mm. Even at 100% they are quite sharp. The brite sky helped shot #2, but the first shot was more reasonable.

</p>

You may need to bump the ISO a bit and use a NR program in the post-processing, or use a faster lens, but it's definitely possible.

I don't think that switching to film will solve your problem. Modern dSLRs should have what it takes to autofocus fast enough, especially if paired with appropriate glass.

I'm not familiar with CS2, but I can offer that I have been a very happy cutsomer of Bibble Pro for a year now. I use it almost every day, and find it to be very fast both in terms of processing and workflow efficiency. It did take some learning to take advantage of all its features, but well worth the time.

 

Since a 30 day trial is free, why not test if out for yourself?

More context certainly would have been better - I'll keep that in mind next time. The photo was taken yesterday (May 10) in Western New York. The area is primarily lakeside woodlands, although swamp, grassy fields, etc are all within a very short distance.

 

I hadn't noticed that the white throated has a yellow eyebrow that stops at mid-eye, while the Savannah Sparrow (nevadensis) eyebrow continues beyond the eye. This distinction makes it obvious.

 

Thanks to all who responded in a respectful manner. I'm still working at learning the birds. And yes, I do use a guide (at least 2 usually) before I trouble others for an opinion. Most of my bird gallery entries have their latin names in the comment, and I assure you that I haven't memorized them at this point.

 

Cheers!

I'm looking for some help with a sparrow identification... The image

is <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/3354560>here</a>.

</p>

I'm thinking savannah sparrow due to the yellow eyebrows, but there

are so many subtle varieties that I'd appreciate someone with more

experience than myself chiming in.</p>

 

Thanks in advance,

Chris

Andrew,

 

It doesn't have to be tedious... It's a question of workflow. In many cases you will have a "roll" or series of shots with similar lighting. Using the right tool you can push changes to many files at once. I use Bibble in my workflow, and once I tweak the first image, I can often apply changes to all others aith a few keystrokes.

 

Of course, if you have many different lighting scenarios, it's not as helpful, but still something to consider.

If you don't have a remote shutter, you can always use the self-timer. It works just as well in landscapes.

 

Another thing I noticed in your image is that there appeared to be dust in the image. Didn't check your gear, so I don't know if its sensor dust or something else, but it can be cleaned up with a clone tool easily.

If you're not hell-bent on the low weight, or a "expendable" lens, you might want to save up for a bit longer and go for a 70-210 or an older 80-200.

 

If none of those sounds good, you might at least consider the slight step up to the 70-300 f/4 ED which uses a nicer optics, but I believe is still slow as a dog (and hunts like one) on focus.

 

I have the 70-300 G, and it's really not up to the standards you may be expecting from Nikkor... You can make it work, but you have to work at it. Given the chance to go back in time I can say with certainty that I would not buy it again.

The meanings of kitsch I found are these:</p>

<ol>

<li>Sentimentality or vulgar, often pretentious bad taste, especially in the arts: <i>When money tries to buy beauty it tends to purchase a kind of courteous kitsch</i> (William H. Gass).</li>

<li>An example or examples of kitsch.</li>

</ol>

<br>

I'm not sure that I would view landscapes as kitsch, except perhaps an extremely poorly composed one... Now cliche, that's something I see all the time, but I don't think that's what you are getting at.

Nature presents beauty in many forms. When I'm working on a landscape I try to find the compositions that accentuate the details people would usually overlook. My mission is to show people what they are missing.

</p>

Sometimes that involves including some bad with the good, but in those cases I try to find an angle that minimizes the bad so the beauty shines through. I think it's like a glamour shot without cloning out pimples. An average person would still find the model beautiful even with a small red dot on her nose.

</p>

For example, in <a href= http://www.photo.net/photo/3110274>this shot</a> there is a bit of glare on a car windshield in the parking lot, but I think it is overwhelmingly outgunned by the lines and brilliant lighting. It's all about balance.

I don't think there's any one I completely admire, but I find aspects of many artists work that motivate me. I strive to bring those elements together in my work rather than emulate one.

 

Probably cliche, but Galen Rowell, AA, and HCB are probably the three I try hardest to pull from. My soul (strives to) emulates Rowell, my composition (strives to) emulates AA and I strive to find the decisive moments which were illuminated by HCB.

 

I don't always line them up, but that's where I aim.

<div></div>

<i>"My D1x works just fine, and I don't plan to replace it any time soon. It's a working camera, and for that the build-quality trumps anything a plastic replica has to offer. It makes consistently sharp prints at 13x22, or larger if I have the inclination."</i></p>

 

I can say the same for my D70. With quality input I can get 16x20 output, and it worked reliably all winter long in cold wet conditions despite having a plastic body. Don't get me wrong, metal bodies are very cool, and certainly will handle more abuse than plastic, but to dismiss the D70 as a plastic replica is to be ignorant of its construction quality. I have yet to read about anyone complaining about a D70 breaking, but I've read many accounts of dropping it without so much as a hairline crack. Not everyone truly abuses their cameras, or needs metal bodies.</p>

 

They are both incredible cameras, but from what I've read, the ribbon for image quality goes to the D70. Image quality isn't everything though, so I'd suggest handling each one and seeing if ergonomics help you to make the decision.