paul.thomsen

Gday Jason - I'm considering the same now that I've ordered a Nikkor 200-400 for my D2x - did you end up getting one? If so did it meet your needs? I see there is a heavier duty one also (GM5540?)

The <a href="http://wildfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3659018/1/208958919">two photos at http://wildfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3659018/1/208958919</a> are examples where I might have got a better image (less subject movement and/or dof) if I wasn't so hesitant to up the ISO a bit.

Anyone know any good links or can give me info on this? I own a D2X but I

have access to a work D200 I can pretty much use as much as I like... I

personally think anything above 400ISO is crappy on the D2X- although if I

wanted to record an event I think its ok to go higher with noise ninja or such -

but not for good image quality.

 

I do a lot of wildlife photography and I'm wondering if it'd be worth putting

my 400mm on the D200 body when the light is getting lower or when I want to

freeze the action more.

 

Just my impressions are that the D200 is one or two stops better in the noise

department just from reading around - but I haven't really seen a direct

comparison comparing images etc...

 

I'll do some comparison myself - but I'm keen to see what others say about it

too.

Kevin where did you find your good explanation on the site? All I read there about it is the following paragraph;<br><br>

<i>Mounted between your tripod and ballhead, this Markins tripod base enhances stability and reduces vibration1. Allowing to remove the center column, the tripod base reduces the weight of tripod, and especially, enables the tripod to get closer to the ground for macro photography.<br><br></i>

This is at http://www.markinsamerica.com/MA5/TB-20.php#Details.<br><br>

This doesn't say how it does it at all?

Silly question probably but I just want to know how these things add stability

and vibration reduction to your tripod - I missing that bit. I've trolled

these forums a bit and looks at the Markins website even - they all seem to say

they do it but not how.

<div></div>

<div></div>

I want to get into trying some panorama shots with my D2X. I notice that

Edward at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=008q71">this photo.net posting</a> suggests that any slider will do

really - and you don't necessarily have to get some expensive panorama head for

your tripod.

 

Would something like <a

href="http://www.adorama.com/BG3419.html#ProductReviews"> this slider posted on

adorama</a> suffice?

<div></div>

Thanks all - Geoff I ordered that book from Amazon - arrived yesterday - looks good thanks!

 

I honestly didnt realise that in camera sharpening had no effect on RAW which I shoot - I should've tho!

Is there general consensus that the D300 is an upgrade to the D2X in regards to

wildlife photography? I'm thinking that;

 

<UL>

<LI>I'll keep my +50% focal length

<LI>Improved focusing system

<LI>Better quality images? (Improved noise/DR/bits etc)

<LI>Extra usable F-stops? (better noise at higher ISO?)

<LI>Slightly poorer build quality but still very good

<LI>New features (liveview etc)

<LI>Can share batteries with the D2X if I get the extra grip addon

</UL>

<P>

I'd love the D3, but I don't shoot enough weddings/portraits etc to justify

it... so I have my eye on the cheaper D300 as an upgrade. Do people agree?

I'm mostly interested in the image quality question - I am guessing things like

improved noise at higher ISOs are still just rumour?

<div></div>

Just wondering what strategy people suggest here. I have a D2X and mostly do

nature/wildlife photography - I don't really have any need to have images ready

hot of the press. Does that mean therefore I should turn sharpening

completely off on the D2X - because presumably photoshop with a serious

computer behind it should do a better job?

Anyone tried this combo? I assume it'd work pretty good? I think my 180 gives

great results but I've never used a teleconverter ever...

 

That would give me a cheap 405/4 on a D2X?

 

(180x1.5 = 270 x1.5 = 405)

I like this lens too and use it a lot for all sorts of photography - especially wildlife and birds. I'd prefer a 200-400VR or a 400/2.8 but until that time it'll have to do :)

 

I use it exclusively hand held and have got some great sharp images - although I must admit it's a little hit and miss to get a really sharp one at 400mm depending on the circumstances (like how much caffiene I've consumed) I get perhaps 1 out of 3 - but at shorter lengths (like the attached photo) its pretty good. I've never owned a big fast lense but I assume it wouldn't be something you can easily walk around with.<div></div>

I am finding that for virtually every NEF file that I open into PS that the RAW

importer feels it has to increase the overall brightness of the image. When I

untick the automatic exposure compensation and brightness the image looks

underexposed - the image looked fine on the back of the camera however.

 

Often it seems that the RAW importer will descrease the exposure and increase

the brightness, or vice versa. I seem to get more noise than I'd like an I'm

wondering if thats because the RAW converter is trying to brighten the images

(which seems to be required).

 

Do others have the same experience or should I be concerned? Is my D2X

underexposing?

Anyone know of any way to get NEF support in Vista? I'm wondering if theres

a NEF viewer like for XP or some sort of update for that Windows Photo Gallery

app.

 

Otherwise has anyone tried CS2 in Vista and does the RAW stuff work ok?

Thanks Gary - I'll take a look

Any suggestions?

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

I was just going to post the same question when I did a search and found this first. I am using compressed as well and wondered if I should.