ron_snyder6
-
Posts
83 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by ron_snyder6
-
-
<p>To stop the problem with the equipment you already have, simply flip the camera to the vertical position, but the opposite way. Flip it so the handgrip is at the top. This way, the camera is actually trying to tighten instead of loosening. It will only tighten so much before it is no longer an issue. I learned this years ago shooting a Nikon F3HP with motor drive & a Nikon 180/2.8... A friend also had the same problem & now shoots verticals like this as well. It may feel strange doing it this way at first, but after only a short time, it feels normal to me & my shooting partner.</p>
-
<p>It's not always about having a faster shutter speed. Sometimes it's for the rendered out of focus backgrounds you get when isolating a subject where to have a background that is in focus is an image that fails to convey the intended feeling of the image. I am not a professional photographer nor do I pretend to be, but I do earn a certain amount of $ from the sale of my images & faster/better lenses do play a major role in the success or failure of an image. Sometimes it makes the difference between making a saleable photo or making an ordinary grab shot photo.</p>
-
<p>Had a Nikon 16-85 lens. It is a nice lens, but when compared to my Nikon 28-70/2.8 which replaced the 16-85, there is no comparison. Much more expensive even used, but the image quality is stunning with very fine detail rendered that was just so-so with the 16-85. The 16-85 I had WAS a good copy, but theres a reason, other than just being a faster lens, that pro's use them & that being image quality. They simply ARE better. I gave up focal length at both ends, but I already had other lenses to cover what I lost by going with the 28-70. Now I be a happy camper....</p>
-
<p>I edited my last post, but it wouldn't let me repost after 10 mins, & I refuse to try to remember exactly what I added, so that's all I'm going to say about it.</p>
-
<p>I've discovered the Think Tank Retrospect 30 bag & have sold most of the rest including a backpack bag & sling bags. Those always worked great for carrying, but not so great when working out of them on the ground. The slingbag & backpack don't stand up while on the ground & tend to be messy to carry after sitting on a wet/dirty ground then picked up & worn getting me and/or my clothes/coat dirty.</p>
-
<p>I use A Kirk ballhead (BH-3) w/quick release . A friend has a manfrotto pistol grip head. I tried it. NO THANKS!!! Heavy lenses causes it to slip. He needs it because of a hand disability & I fully understand & respect his reasoning for liking it. Purchasing a high quality ballhead or whatever type of head you prefer, the first time will ultimately save you money because if you don't buy quality the first time, you'll end up buying it later anyways & will then have spent $ on 2 heads. Buy a good one & you'll only have to buy it once. Most professional photographers prefer & use a ballhead for a reason. The best ones are by, & in no particular order: Kirk, Really Right Stuff, Arca Swiss, Markins, Burzynski & Acratech. Here's a link to some good info on all of them: <a href="http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/ballhead/">http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/ballhead/</a></p>
-
<p>What precautions are necessary with carbon fiber tripods. I'm thinking seriously of buying a Gitzo GT2531 CF tripod but I'm not sure & question the durability of the carbon fiber. My aluminum tripod (Manfrotto 3221 Wilderness) gets pushed up against stone/rock walls, opened with the feet in fresh water streams, gets used in sub 0° temps (as low as -10°F) & has never failed me. Can I expect a Gitzo CF tripod to be as reliable & trouble free? I'm looking to reduce my tripod leg weight from above 5 lbs to about 3 lbs. 2 lbs is a good weight reduction in my book.</p>
-
<p>I would only take the D700 if you are ready to buy a D700 replacement.</p>
-
<p>I just recently sold my excellent Nikon 16-85D AF VR lens & bought a used, like new 28-70/2.8 D AFS. YES there is a difference. I was blown away by the sharpness & clarity of this lens especially from f/4-f/8 & no CA. Expensive, but enlarged prints show it's capabilities & make it worth the $.</p>
-
<p>The one I went to years ago was basically a live infomercial. To do this "YOU NEED TO BUY THIS NIKON LENS", do to this other thing "YOU NEED TO BUY THIS NIKON ASSY" and on & on it went.</p>
-
<p>Thinktank Retrospect 20. I happen to prefer it in Pinestone color. I just got one & am now trying to get rid of my other 6 bags. If you decide on what you like, I'll probably have one of them to sell you.</p>
-
<p>I also use the 16-85 lens & find my copy to be very good. I use it along side of a 70-300 VR lens. A few days ago, I did some test shots comparing it to a Nikon 35-70/2.8D AF. While the 16-85 appears as sharp, the 35-70 renders shadow details better thus telling me that the 35-70 shows better contrast. The test was done using a tripod mounted D200, mirror lockup set, both lenses at f11 & shutter tripped with a cable release. The VR was turned off on the 16-85. I also must confess that the 35-70 also has a small chip dead center on the front element. I am thinking of sending it to Nikon to have the front element replaced & a CLA. Except for the unfortunate chipped glass, this lens is like new. I fell on it & destroyed the UVA filter which caused the chip, but the filter took the beating instead of the lens. The ring was dented in & the glass shattered.</p>
-
<p>I carry 4 batteries because they don't last very long, maybe 275 or so pics per battery.</p>
-
<p>I have an abundance of cf memory cards that I bought at a great price. Do they go bad or corrupt if not used regularly? I just bought (3) 8gb Lexar Platinum II cards for $77. I don't need to have all 3 in service & I figured with use, they don't last forever. My older cards are 4 yrs old, so I bought these new ones to replace the older & less capacity cards. Each 8gb card gives me 469 raw images, so I don't usually need more than 1 card per shooting session.</p>
-
<p>Think Tank sold me their demo model Retrospective 20 at a discounted price. Couldn't be happier with them or it. GREAT bag & definately worth waiting for.</p>
-
<p>I called MPEX & was told that they have been out of them for a month now.</p>
-
<p>Actually I want the Think Tank Retrospective 20. The 30 was a typo. </p>
-
<p>Thanks for pointing out that Amazon has one like it. The one on Amazon is the Think Tank Retrospective 30 & not the 20 & would cost an additional $34. The price is $20 higher & then they add in $14 for shipping that Think Tank doesn't charge. I guess I'll just wait till the 20 is back in stock at Think Tank. Thanks for finding it tho.</p>
-
<p>This bag seems to be sold out everywhere. I've searched the internet & all the sellers list it as "out of stock". Anyone know who might have this in stock or have any idea as to when they will again be in stock? They are available in black, but everyone, including me, seems to want it in Pinestone.</p>
-
<p>I must have had ANOTHER one of Nikons "spotty" lenses. My sample provided "nice" pictures beyond 8x10 enlargements, but was FAR from what I'd call sharp. Every pic can be improved in sharpness in Photoshop & I do, however that is NOT a substitute for poor lens performance. My sample lens never came near to being as sharp at even 70mm@f11 as my Nikon 35-70/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 VRll or Nikon 16-85/3.5-5.6 VR at 70mm/f11. I always shoot using a Manfrotto 3051 tripod (center column NOT extended), Kirk medium ball head, mirror locked up & a cable release. Mine was purchased new & was never dropped or banged. Mine must have been just ANOTHER poor sample.</p>
-
<p>I repeat,"one of the factors in a great image is the picture quality". Lighting & composition are not factors in the case of a soft lens. I don't disagree with Stephen Worth, however the original posters question was in regards to image quality based on a particular lens. Lighting & composition is another subject that the original poster was not seeking advice on.</p>
-
<p>When looking at the side by side images provided by Shun Cheung, look at the stucco wall at f8. That softness is there throughout the entire image, just better seen because it's a texture. To me, that softness is totally unexceptable. That is one of the factors that separates a great image from an ok image. You decide what's important to you.</p>
-
<p>This lens will be fine for those who post pics on the internet or don't enlarge more than 8x10, but anything larger & the image quality really suffers. I typically print to approx 12x18 & sometimes much larger & found this lens to be soft in comparison to either my 16-85 VR or 70-300 VRll, both of which are satisfactory. I shoot for competition, & good image quality is mandatory. I owned my 18-200 for only a few weeks when I found it just didn't measure up to what I needed. I replaced it with the 16-85 which provides MUCH better results. I always have my camera mounted on a heavy tripod. mirror locked up & shutter released with a cable release. If you only plan on hand holding the camera while shooting, this lens will be fine.</p>
-
<p>That lens is known to be somewhat soft at it's best. I had one too. I no longer have it. I replaced mine with the Nikon 16-85. It it much sharper than the 18-200 it replaced.</p>
Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 And Gitzo Ball Head 1276?
in Nikon
Posted