harry_neuwirth1

<p>I just returned from a similar trip, including some trekking. My goal was primarily to travel light but also to avoid using on-camera flash. The kit lens (18-105VR) and a 50/1.4 fit nicely with my D7000 in a Tamrac waist pack. The kit lens never came off the camera. In low light I was restricted to using the cross-focus points. But then, lock focus, lock exposure and recompose is one of the reasons for lugging around an SLR in the first place.<br>

For night-time photos with family in the foreground: my difficult scenarios are dusk with the background at similar EV to the lit monument (or christmas lights for that matter) and night with fireworks. The first needs off axis fill flash to bring faces up to the background EV. The second scenario begs for a tripod.<br>

So, I would not add a lens your current system (and even think about leaving the telephoto behind unless you intend on wildlife in the mountains). I would look closely at adding an SB-400.</p><div></div>

<p>Enjoy the trip. We have our share of quirky architecture and design and I think the advice you were given is great. Don't miss the camera obscura at point lobos or the church of saint john coltrane. Muir Woods in August is packed, but if you drive a few miles up to ridgecrest or east peak you'll get the views and shake the crowds.</p>

<p>Interesting quandary. For my money, best bet would be a d7000 and a light superzoom like a tamron 18-270 on the bike: light, good image quality, pretty snappy focus and 6 frames/second for those downhill shots. I wouldn't bother with the D3, but would bring along some fast lenses for the evenings. I have tried to love point'n'clicks for travel but in my hands even the good ones miss as many shots as my iphone camera.</p>

<p>You almost can't go wrong on that trip. If you like to shoot very early in the morning your best bet may be to hire a guide for at least a few of the days and backpack. Once you get half a mile off the roads the park is almost entirely deserted: except for bison, grizzly bear and the occasional wolf.<br>

Is this going to be a round trip to SLC? If so, you might consider driving north through Cody, catching the very unique light along the chief joseph highway and coming in to the north entrance. Coming down through Grand Teton for early light you will again want to camp, as the alpine lakes and open views are 5-10 miles upcountry from the lodges.<br>

Heading south through the park is a very accessible, beautiful and mostly deserted preserve donated by the Rockefellers. I don't think that you can get in too early, but the Rockefellers did get the prettiest little lake in the park.<br>

Finally, coming south to SLC you will pass Bear Lake, definitely worth a stop for its turqoise water against the red desert, and the very rugged Cache national forest.</p>

 

<p>My experience with polarizers (Nikon, B+W, Hoya) is that you can have a little brown or a slight blue, but true neutral grey can be a problem. I find it helpful to white balance off a grey card held away from the ground, water and buildings by an assistant or passer-by.<br>

With respect to your choice of lens: for physics reasons I have long since forgotten sky brightness and color cast will be inconsistent over a wide angle. This vignetting may be subtle at 50mm but probably bothersome at 17.</p>

<p>I have taken both of these backpacking with a D300. Sorry, I find that I need both.<br>

The 70-200 achieves better microcontrast, color and focus speed in poor light. Result: more and more memorable shots at dusk and dawn and I can attach a polarizer, lose 2 EV and still have enough light for efficient auto-focus behavior.<br>

The 70-300 sits comfortably in a small belt pouch, weighs a lot less and is longer. Result: more grab shots while on the trail. Focus speed is fine in good light or good contrast but suffers a lot with a polarizer.<br>

My bottom line: If nature photos are a priority, I end up taking the 70-200, a 1.4 TC, polarizer, short zoom (tamron 18-50) and gradient filters, a tripod and motrin (almost 10 lbs extra in my pack). For a walk in the woods with friends, however, the 70-300 is a much better companion.</p>

<div></div>

<p>My experience has been that photographing jewelry and glass is more about the lighting than the lens.</p>

<ul>

<li>You can pick up a Tamron 17-50 macro (6"-12" FOV at one foot distance) or a used Nikon 60 or 105 micro (3" at one foot) for about $300. Check here or on fredmiranda.com. They come up often. </li>

<li>You probably will also need a light box, an off-camera flash and support for the flash. Here is a DIY setup that worked pretty well for me. <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.html">http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.html</a> </li>

<li>This book took a lot of the trial and error out of the lighting: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-Introduction-Photographic-Lighting/dp/0240808193">http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-Introduction-Photographic-Lighting/dp/0240808193</a></li>

</ul>

<p>I have used a d300 and your lens setup for several years to shoot soccer and indoor water polo. In a nutshell:</p>

<ul>

<li>Know your sport. Nothing beats pre-focusing on the player who will soon be the center of action</li>

<li>You are smarter than the camera. After a few months of experimenting I settled on single point focus, continuous focusing, manual white balance off a grey card, 6fps in short bursts. Turn off the VR most of the time. Outdoors think about using a polarizing filter on sunny days.</li>

<li>Exposures. Sometimes manual, usually aperture priority. Outdoors, where available light can vary across 4 f-stops as you pan the field, use auto-ISO. </li>

<li>The games are long and, eventually, you will get all the players in their moment. I found it helpful to shoot tight, crop tighter and let each image speak to one small part of the game.</li>

</ul>

<p>For bulk conversion I use DXO Optics Pro. It does a great job of white balance, exposure balance, noise reduction and lens correction, to the point that I am using photoshop exclusively for retouch and cropping. Processing and converting 350 pix is about four hours to overnight depending on which PC I am using.</p>

<p>You won't go far wrong with either one. I prefer the 105DC for candids of young people that won't sit still for you. At f4 the entire subject is sharp and you can use the DC to throw the (often distracting) background well out of focus. Great for kids. <br>

For older subjects, of course, the 85 at 1.4 permits one eye totally in focus while the wrinkles and blemishes are softened into a blur. Saves hours of photoshop time.</p>

You will freeze long before the camera. Bring an extra battery and keep it in your inner layer. Rapid temperature changes can cause condensation or freezing. Some people leave their gear outdoors. I prefer to keep it in a closed bag with fresh silica gel packs. Also, think about your hands. Hunting gloves with a removable trigger finger work great.

 

Snow scenes have enormous contrast and often glare. After lots of hit and miss (matrix meter and over-expose 2 stops), I finally gave in and started using an incident light meter and bringing along a polarizer and KR 1.5

The D200 was and is a great camera. If you need weatherproofing and a fast autofocus screw to move a large AF lens

(like a 300-AF) then it or the D300 are your choices. But, my experience with older lenses has been that the microfocus

adjustment first introduced in the D3 and D300 is an absolute lifesaver. The D90 has this adjustment and improved high

ISO performance. Best of all, you can

probably find one for a little over $850. I doubt you will notice a difference in autofocus speed with the 50mm lens between

a D90 and a D200.

Her entire face and much of her hair is in focus. Her nose and forehead aren't much distorted. On a D200 it is easy to get this effect with an 85mm or longer at about f4. Of course, looking at her eyes, nose and background, I think there is one light camera left with a softbox, another camera right and a small hairlight for the background screen. The photographer overexposed about 1.5 stops for that high-key effect. And, while setting up the shot, she was chatting up the subject so her face is perfectly relaxed and composed.

If your birds are against the bright sky, spot metering helps

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Skin-Complete-Digitally-Photographing-Retouching/dp/047004733X/ref=sr_1_1/103-6680916-0339006?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213103860&sr=1-1">Skin</a> is a great reference and offers solutions to camera and lighting settings for this problem.

The D70s limits you a bit at high ISO. For low light dinner parties you really want the 50/1.4. The 85 is wonderful but a lot harder to hand hold, assuming you are going to be shooting about 1/30-1/60 in low light.

 

My problem in shooting candids in better light, however, is usually some distraction a couple of feet behind the subject, just close enough to be nicely in focus. After dozens of hours editing in photoshop I finally bit the bullet and picked up a used 105 F2 DC. Problem solved.

I use mine as a walk-around telephoto with a D300. My copy front-focuses a little, but the AF fine tune took care of that. Does it have the snap and contrast of the top of the line lenses? Not so much. But it did track these jets flying low altitude

Hi there, I have been taking pictures of surgery and occasional skin lesions for some time. Here is the little that I have learned:

First, camera bodies come and go, lenses are forever.

Second, much of the time it will not be you behind the camera.

Third, gear is cheap, your time is expensive.

 

With a Nikkor 105 micro AF-S VR your nurse can take pictures while you are gloved and can maintain enough distance from the surgical field that your patient will be comfortable. I found that I had to get too close to the patient with my 50 mm macro, which is now used for flowers only. REAL macro photographers disdain AF and VR for their work. They also take 15 minutes to set up a shot with whisker thin DOF. Trust me, in the clinic you want automation and you want it at F8.

 

Any of the digital bodies will do, but you will probably be happier dialing in the exposure and white balance with a grey card so the D80 is probably the best balance between versatility and cost. The fancier bodies are great, but heavier and in my experience intimidating for assistants and nurses to use.

 

Macro ringlights are great for internal organs and forensics, but not terribly flattering on the skin and don't provide much depth information to the viewer. If cosmetic dermatology is in the offing, consider the advantages of a Nikon R1 speedlight with an SU-800 and SB-600's through umbrellas off to the side. This system provides more flexibility in demonstrating scars, wrinkles and skin surface smoothness than a ring-flash used as the only light source.

 

If you are working under operating room lights you may not need flash at all. I routinely shoot at F4-F8, 1/60-1/125, ISO 400-1600, custom white balance, without flash. If I use flash in the operating room, I use a tungsten gel and custom white balance. If a nurse is doing the photography I set up the system to bracket three exposures over a narrow range, as the first exposure usually has too much camera shake.

Hi Stephen. I have found that flexibility and ease of use are critical for surgical photography. Dinecorp makes a ring light specifically for dental photography for about $450. The 105 micro is really the ideal lens for your purpose. The older version can be found used for about $300.

 

Using a mirror doesn't eliminate the DOF problem. I have posted an example below. P&S cameras have very broad DOF compared to cameras with larger sensors.<div></div>

Polo

1.4 all the way. The color and contrast are fabulous and it is indestructible. You can get great available light shots in the school play, piano recital or basketball game. Most important, this lens just loves women's faces....so you will have permission for the next purchase.

Hi there. For my money, I would go with a Lumix FZ30 or equivalent rather than a D70 and the kit lens. With the Lumix you save a few hundred bucks and get image stabilization to boot. If on a budget and devoted to getting started, however, you might consider a D70, the 85mm/1.8, a good flash unit and a tripod. You will spend at least $1500, but you will reap lots of dividends with the very precise lens, control of shadows and a stable platform.

The auto-focus needs a small area of high contrast. Rather than center focus and recompose, you can use the 7 area or 11 area frame to position your focal point almost anywhere on the frame. By the same token, you might try setting auto-exposure to spot metering. In low and variable lighting this will properly expose your focal point rather than take an average of the entire scene.

I am in the same boat...rank beginner trying to photograph sports. Here is what I've learned....Well, the most important thing is that it is difficult to simultaneously cheer and focus.

 

I like to have a well defined focal point to the shot, with surrounding activity blurred. I also like to have the action coming out of the scene, so I tend to position myself or adjust the focal length to get a four to nine foot horizontal field of view. For example, racked out to 200mm I would want to be 45 to 90 feet away from the action to watch "conflict" and use shorter focal lengths for shots on goal. This means that I need to understand the position and my player's relationship to the ball and the opponents so I know where to stand. I can promise that you will find yourself behind the goal and on the opposite sideline from time to time.

 

Focused in this tightly you may want to turn the VR off or set it on active mode. I use a monopod. If nothing else, it identifies you as "occupied" and lets you work in peace.

 

I have learned that I pretty much have to control the shutter speed and aperture to get useful shots. Bright sunlight makes that easy...I usually set the shutter speed to 1/1000 and the aperture to f4 or f5.6 using manual mode. I control exposure using the auto-iso setting. Auto-iso is a phenomenal tool, since light may vary 4 f-stops following a play across a sunlit field. My more sophisticated friends go on about noise at higher ISO, but my shots aren't good enough for this to matter.

 

I take lots of images and toss almost all of them. I am never really sure when the moment of contact will happen, so I tend to work with both eyes open, use S mode for focus control and shoot at 5 fps following a single focal point. It's fun to play with the off-center focal points and can make for interesting shots if the action is coming towards you.

 

I use JPEG FINE so I can store 500 shots on a 4 gb card. JPEG FINE lets me crop to about 25% and still keep enough detail. Typically, I will get about 150 exposures, toss 100 just reviewing them on the LCD and end up with about 10-20 exposures that are worth keeping on the computer and 0-3 that are worth printing.

 

My printing workflow is simple: I crop using a presized crop tool, auto-adjust brightness and apply the unsharp mask once.<div></div>