ralf_strandell

Hi,

 

Looking for a discreet bag for D70 + prime lens.

 

I got my D70 this week and I'm preparing for a shooting trip. I

already have a large camera bag, but now I'm looking for something

more discreet for social events and other situations where the empasis

is less on photography and where I just want to carry my D70 to get

some informal photos without drawing too much attention.

 

Thus I would like to find a camera bag that looks more like "just a

bag" than "a camera bag". It should be rather small - or at least flat

- as I don't like those neon green cube-like bags. The bag should have

room for a D70, a 35mm prime, keys, money, phone and a water bottle

(and a map).

 

I was thinking of "Domke F-5XB shoulder/belt bag" or "Domke F-6" or

"Domke F-803 camera satchel". Those are not locally available, so I

need to purchase online.

 

- What do you think of those bags? Which one would you bring with you

to a pub in the evening when traveling, for example? (If you want to

enjoy the evening...) I guess how the bag "feels" is more important

than its size. A small cube is more annoying to carry than a bigger

flat one... Which one would you take with you when shooting discreetly

in a night club (yes, with permission). Which one would you bring with

you on a holiday when carrying just one or two lenses?

"My concern is a stability and weight"

 

Did you consider the "Manfrotto Carbon One 441" (european product numbering) carbon fibre tripod?

 

It is very light weight and feels quite stable - but I'm actually using it for video, not stills (yet), so I have no experince of extended exposures... It's a joy to carry up a montain.

 

I haven't used anything else, but I have read that carbon fibre is supposed to dampen vibrations more efficiently than aluminum or steel. On the other hand - it sometimes sticks when you try to adjust height precisely.

The CPL+UV combo is actually a single 5mm thick filter:

 

"Hoya Ultra Polarizing filters are a combination of a UV filter and a Circular Polarizer. They are intended for wide-angle lenses, are 5mm thick, and do not have a front thread."

 

( Why would anyone need UV filtering on a CPL? Isn't scattered UV polarized already? Maybe the combination is more effective at high altitude? Maybe there is some direct UV light too, especially for backlit situations? I don't know. Maybe it's just a marketing trick... Anyway, it can't harm, can it? )

Hi,

 

I would like someone more knowledgeable to tell whether I made a good

choice regarding filters or not.

 

I'm looking for a polarizer for my Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lens. It's

going to be used at lakes and on seashore and on mountains to remove

reflections from water (and snow/ice).

 

I have two options: Hoya S-HMC coated circ. polarizer or a Hoya HMC

coated circ. polarizer + UV filter.

 

I guess that the CPL+UV combo would work better for sea and mountains

than a plain CPL. The combo has slightly less coatings (HMC vs.

S-HMC), but as I can use the filter with a lens hood, the coating

doesn't matter. Does it?

 

So, was it wise to get the combo with less coatings? Or should I still

change my pending order to include a plain CPL with a bit better coatings?

 

Thanks

"Is another stop important to you on a digital body to justify 2x the cost?"

 

And the answer is: yes, getting the photo is worth 2x the cost.

 

This is not a matter of high ISO noise but a matter of getting an usable shutter speed. The Sigma f/1.4 will probably help when it comes available.

 

ps. Show me how to enable ISO3200 on a D70 to halve exposure time and I'll be happy with f/2. Right now there seems to be only one lens alternative - the 35mm f/2 (the 28mm f/1.4 and/or D2 beeing too expensive).

Thanks. I'll need a fast 35mm lens next week, so this is an easy choice. I'll go for the known quality Nikkor, that's available right now. I'll check the Sigma later, when it becomes available and has been reviewed...

Hi,

 

I hired a lens and tried the 50mm f/1.4 AF Nikkor last weekend and

found out that I was using the f/2.0 - f/1.4 aperture range a lot to

reach usable shutter speeds (around 1/30 - 1/60 sec). However, 50mm on

a 1,5x dSLR (Nikon D70) seems not to be quite wide enough for my needs

and the slow non-AF-S autofocus got quite annoying, too. But I just

loved the compactness of the lens and beeing freed from zooming. I

could get a picture in less than two seconds. Just aim and shoot -

nice. I really love that feature.

 

Now I have two choices: 1) Nikkor AF 35mm f/2.0 D 2) Sigma 30mm f/1.4

EX DC HSM

 

The sigma has the speed I want. It also has fast(?) autofocus because

of HSM. And it's marginally wider, too, which is nice. It also looks

reasonably compact (compared to the kit zoom, for example). I haven't

tried it, though.

 

Questions

 

- Now, what is the optical quality of the Sigma shot wide open or

using the larger apertures in general? (shooting would be close range,

between 1m and 15m)

 

- Has anyone used this lens with a Nikon D70, for example? How does it

perform?

 

I could still get the Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 instead if it provides

superior image quality at f/2.0...

Hi,

 

I need a grey card that is

 

1) is pocket sized

 

2) tolerates moisture and dirt and can be easily washed

 

3) is of good quality

 

and

 

4) is available for online purchase internationally

 

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

Unfortunately I'll be staying only two days on Skye, so what I have time to see is limited.

 

I guess the Neist Point light house, Portree, Glen Birttle forest, Talisker distillery, Elgol and Loch Coruisk is a nice and varied sampling of the Skye.

Thanks! That was very helpful. I'll check out both the Elgol road and the boat trip to Loch Coruisk. I wouldn't have heard about the boat trip unless I asked here... I'll be exploring Neist Point (and the lighthouse), too - and Glen Brittle (and Talisker :) if I have time.

 

I have also got a topographic map now, and the area seems exciting. There must be plenty of detail to photograph. I'm not a rock climber so I need to stay away from the cliffs, though.

 

I'm not after some "mountains in the distance" photos. Those are too often boring. Instead I'm looking for lakes, waterfalls, flowers, interesting rock formations etc. that could be photographed against a distant background, the sky, the sea... The best way to get some of those photos would be to climb but I have neither the skill nor the courage. Hence, I'm staying on or close to the paths (marked on the map). And yes, I might want the Cuillin in the background, if there is something interesting in the foreground.

And those primes, meant for evening/night use, are 52mm and 75mm effective on a dSLR.

Hi,

 

Has anyone been to the Cuilin hills on Isle of Skye, Scotland?

 

What would be the most useful focal lengths for mountain landscapes

there? Would it be a disaster not to carry anything wider than 28mm

equivalent lenses? And what about tele?

 

Currently I only have a 28mm-105mm equivalent zoom (Nikon AF-S 18-70mm

f/3.5-4.5 DX) and a 35mm f/2.0 and 50mm f/1.8 prime coming...

 

Any specifically interesting locations there?

Hi,

 

Would it be stupid to get just one 4GB card instead of two 2GB cards?

 

I guess it is harder to loose a card, that stays inside the camera

than one that's kept in some CF card box somewhere... How big is the

risk that something bad happens to the only card and I could not

continue shooting?

What would you think about the manual focus 24mm f/2.0 AIS lens? Would it work for really really low light indoors situations?

 

It would have the wider angle of view I'm looking for plus enough speed - and hopefully some acceptable depth of field too, beeing so wide. It would be perfect if the manual focusing only works in real life low light situations...

 

I'll try the kit lens and the AF-D 35mm f/2 first, though.

 

Or, should I consider the Sigmas instead?

Hi,

 

I'm going to get a D70 + kit lens tomorrow! Only EUR 900. I already reserved one...

 

Then in a few weeks time I will head for Scotland to shoot some magnificient scenery and small idyllic villages. Thus I'm still considering the primes for that extra sharpness and lack of distortion. I don't want to climb on a mountain just to get second best quality images :) Well, maybe I settle with the kit lens anyway... I don't know... I'm going there only once, though...

 

The kit lens makes waves of horizontal lines at 18mm (noticed that effect near the ceiling in the camera shop). Not necessarily a problem on the street or outdoors generally, but somehow annoying to notice it immediately.

 

I have used an f/4 lens constantly with ISO 800 film and that combination was quite usable in normal evening home lighting, but in low light (that requires the eye to adapt) I was in constant trouble. F/4 at ISO800 was simply many stops too slow. Going f/3.5-4.5 and ISO 1600 is not a big improvement. I'm quite probably getting both the 35mm f/2 and the 50mm f/1.4 as these + D70 would give me three to four EVs more...

 

Are there any other f/2, f/1.8, f/1.4 lenses than the Nikkors that would be sharp fully open?

Hi,

 

Lens advice needed

 

Background:

I'm about to buy a dSLR within a week. This camera would

initially/mostly be used for travel photography (landscapes, cities)

and for social events (people and dim lighting). I decided to get a

dSLR because I want better low light capability than the compacts give

(ergonomics, flexibility, better viewfinder, avoiding framing with lcd

are important too). It's going to be either a D70s + 18-70mm f/4 kit

lens or the older D70 + 18-70mm f/4 + firmware upgrade, if available).

 

Choosing lenses:

I read that the 18-70mm kit lens is a nice, affordable and flexible

"entry level" lens but that it's neither an excellent

street/architecture/landscape lens (wideangle, distortion) nor a good

low light lens either (f/4). The 17-55mm f/2.8 is big, heavy and

probably draws too much attention to it so I decided to get one or two

fast primes for indoors and street/architecture/landscape photography.

The often recommended Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 seems to be a good starting

point to explore fast primes, but it's 52mm equivalent focal length is

not always short enough (I tried with my film dSLR)(and I have no lens

collection worth keeping).

 

QUESTION:

Would any of the 24mm/20mm/18mm f/2.8 AF-D primes be a good combined

low light interior + street/architecture/landscape lenses for D70(s)?

The D70s has a bit faster continuous shooting mode than the D50 (3fps, 48sec, jpeg/normal/large), a remote cord, a CF-card slot, a faster shutter (1/8000sec) and a "night portrait mode" instead of "child", WB finetuning (but still no kelvin setting) and still a penta-dach-mirror viewfinder.

 

It would be interesting to know what settings the child mode on the D50 affects. Is it just a marketing trick or is it something really useful?

 

Sizes compared: The D70s is about 5% wider, 10% taller and 10% heavier than D50.

Some interesting details

 

The D50 features a *new* 6.1 Mpix CCD, ISO 200-1600 and shutter speeds from 30sec to 1/4000sec.

 

It's capable of taking 2,5 jpeg/normal images per second for 54 seconds and it features a "child" program mode. That's a more useful feature than "night portrait mode" for many or most people. A very nice entry level dSLR for young families...

 

The D50 also has an 1/500 sec flash sync, 2 inch LCD, USB2 Hi-Speed support, SD-cards, smaller size, an AF-A mode that automatically switches between single-servo and continuous-servo autofocus depending on movement in the frame...

 

The image quality remains to be seen.

http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/index.htm

Note: I was talking about the D70. Hmm, the 20mm f/1.8 Sigma seems most useful, although the quality... must avoid, must...

...but outdoors it would work...

Great calculator. Thanks!

 

Conclusion: The DOF at few (2-6) meters distance at 50mm f/1.4 and up to f/2 (and well above) seems to be too shallow for photographing groups / social events indoors. Ok, I admit that the field of view would be too narrow too... thus - bad lens for the task.

 

A 35mm f/2 lens, luckily, seems to be usable for the task when a 17mm f/2.8 is not bright enough. So, I will be looking at 35mm and wider then for those cramped, poorly lit indoors. Problem solved.

How deep would the focused area approximately be at various focusing

distances when shooting fully open with the 50mm f/1.4 prime? I want a

general idea of the usability of this lens for shooting people indoors

as well as for shooting streets or landscapes. In low light, obviously.

Oh, I forgot:

 

The "Iceland a Rother Walking Guide" is an excellent book. I used it for planning. It helps you find some interesting places. Maps and all. It also tells you how demanding the various places / walks are. An excellent book! Check it out.

Hi, I spent two weeks on Iceland last summer - but I was shooting video. Anyway, here are some general photography ideas:

 

- a polarizer, obviously, for some real nice images of hot springs etc. It can also be used to remove reflections from stone if you want to get rid of that shine on certain type of lava for close range/macro shots.

 

- the sky could be bright but the lava is black (for digital it's a curse). A gradual ND just might be useful sometimes - even for still photograhpy and film. But, as said, I only did video...

 

Traveling tips:

 

- If you are going to Vestman islands then it is safer to get there by ferry (you can fly back), because depending on the weather, the flights might not be able to land there always. I almost missed the Vestman islands because the wind was blowing from the wrong direction. All flights cancelled...

 

- Yes, hire a car as suggested. It's worth it. Definitely. A big 4WD car is Expensive, but really really nice: good view + lets you go to more distant places and ford some small rivers. I got if from Budget car rentals (most affordable back then). An ordinary (non 4WD) car can take you to many interesting (but less demanding) places, too. And if you suddenly hear a disturbing metallic sound from one of the wheels then it's not breaking or anything - you probably just have a small rock in the breaks. It scared me quite badly while driving in the middle of nowhere, btw. Pump with the brakes (for a while) to remove the sand...

 

- Some places to visit: Some real nice, milky, (about) cyan water in an exciting lava landscape just outside the Blue Lagoon (next to the road). Rent a car from the airport and drive this way to Reykjavik. There is a small town/village called Grindavik close to Blue Lagoon, just at the southern shore of Reykjanes. Check it out on the same trip. Is it worth it? It depends... but it's not far anyway. Krisuvik hot spring area south of Reykjavik is nice for a day trip if interested in such things and if you want to see more boiling ponds and mud than just the Geysir area. For some nice icebergs check the Jökulsarlon south of Vattnajökull...

 

- Get some good maps from http://www.lmi.is The "1:500 000 Touring map" is a great overview map. Highly recommended for planning. Then there are the 1:250 000 maps. I used them extensively, too, when driving. Quite nice. I also got some "special maps" for more exact information (and walking). Some of the "topographic" maps can be a bit outdated (new roads missing, lakes disappeared) than the slighly less exact but newer "Atlas" maps. I used the Atlas maps to plan the more demanding drives.