jeff_moag1

<p>Your main use is landscape, so why not bring a lens that's best for that, plus an extension ring that gets you macro capability? I would suggest a 50 1.4, or even something wider, like a 35 2.8. (Others with more macro experience can say whether that would be useful for macro work in your situation--no lights and subjects that don't move.)</p>

<p>The 50 1.4 has the added benefit of being a fine lens for environmental portraits, and for low light. You're going to meet a lot of people along the way, and my experience with similar long wilderness trips and walkabouts is that years from now, you'll cherish photos of your trail friends more than of the trail itself. </p>

<p>Your main use is landscape, so why not bring a lens that's best for that, plus an extension ring that gets you macro capability? I would suggest a 50 1.4, or even something wider, like a 35 2.8. (Others with more macro experience can say whether that would be useful for macro work in your situation--no lights and subjects that don't move.)</p>

<p>The 50 1.4 has the added benefit of being a fine lens for environmental portraits, and for low light. You're going to meet a lot of people along the way, and my experience with similar long wilderness trips and walkabouts is that years from now, you'll cherish photos of your trail friends more than of the trail itself. </p>

<p>My Nikon 80-200 2.8D lens needs a CLA. Can anyone recommend a good shop in south Orange County or North San Diego County, California? Closer to San Clemente the better.</p>

 

<p>Rene, I'm pretty certain the lens was locked in. I shot about 40 frames with it before it balked. The camera was set for single-shot autofocus and the lens was set for autofocus. Camera was in manual metering mode and the popup flash was deployed for fill at -0.7 EV.</p>

<p>I've had two of these lenses and have probably shot 10,000 frames with them. The one that came with my old D70 never had this problem (~8,000 frames, all on the D70). The one I have now has done this intermittently (always on the D200), but typically in low-light situations. Not a big deal since this is the last lens in my kit I'd use in low light. But if it's going to let me down in the full daylight conditions it's best suited for, I need to either repair it or get something else.</p>

<p>I'm seeking the forum's wisdom on whether a cleaning should set things straight, or if I just have a lemon. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Today I'm at the beach and my friend's boy catches his first wave ever. It's a big deal for both of them, and when dad gets out of the water I happen to be there with my Nikkor 18-70 DX mounted on my D200, and the light is pretty good. I frame the shot, but the lens does nothing. Autofocus does not respond, and the shutter won't release (which tells me that I hadn't inadvertantly flipped the switch to MF). I re-frame about three times, put the focus sensor right where I want it and still nothing. Dad and kid are in a great composition and it's just a really touching moment that lasts for maybe three seconds. Now it's gone, and I'm wondering what the hell is wrong with my lens?<br>

It's balked intermittantly before in low light, even decent light like 5.6 at 1/100 and 100 iso. But this was full sunny sixteen conditions with a nice hard edge to focus on. The lens missed a couple focus opportunities whan I first snapped it on, but then worked fine for about 40 frames before going AWOL for the day's best shot. I'm pretty upset that I missed it, and not at all happy that this lens seems destined for the scrapheap after 1.5 years of pretty soft use. <br>

So, my question--what's the deal with this lens? Is this a known problem, and is there anything I can do to repair it? Do I just have a bad example?</p>

 

David,

 

Thanks for the very comprehensive answer to my question. It looks as if I've got the non-compensating lens, though I must shamefully admit that I couldn't figure out how to administer the "acid test." Anyway, serial number 616573 indicates it's the non-compensating. Here's what threw me though: The light blue lettering on the barrel is absolutely identical to that in the photo of the compensating lens (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/a5535d.jpg), although the diamond textured focus grip clearly belongs to the later, non-compensating version. Maybe the blue lettering is a poor litmus test.

 

In any case, I'm intrigued by Gary and some others' suggestion to use an extension tube instead of converting. I would only use this lens for macro work, so the lack of infinite focus is no bother. And since I'll be metering by guess plus histogram, I don't see a downside. Is there one?

 

Jeff

My fellow Nikon aficionados,

 

Ever since going digital my old MF Nikkor glass has been gathering dust. Now

I'm starting convert some of the pre-AI lenses so they will fit on my D70 and

film bodies newer than my F2.

 

I was getting ready to send my 55 mm f/3.5 micro-nikkor P to be converted, and

in the process looked up this lens on Bjorn Rorslett's page. It seems it's a

fairly rare early version, with close-up performance that rates a 5 on Bjorn's

scale. (Text from Bjorn's page below).

 

My question: Should I go ahead and convert this lens, or would it be better to

keep it intact to retain whatever collector's value it might have. I'd rate

it's condition about 8 on a scale of 1-10.

 

Jeff

 

From Bjorn's page:

 

"The modified Micro-Nikkor from the mid '60 had much flatter image field than

the first version of 1961, and gave close-ups with tremendous sharpness.

Despite its single-layer coating, the deeply recessed front element ensured

flare problems were minimised. This lens had an outstanding feature directed at

the non-TTL light meters of its era, viz. an aperture that changed f/numbers by

itself as the lens was focused closer. This meant the photographer could

measure exposure the usual way and let the lens take care of the adjustment

needed by the close-focus extension. Really neat if you didn't use TTL (I did

TTL, however, with my Nikon F Photomic of these halcyon days, and the aperture

re-re-adjustment was cumbersome indeed - I ended up doing stopped-down metering

with it). The 55 mm Micro was optimised for close-ups with peak performance at

1:10 magnification, and the image quality suffered when it was used for

landscape shots. For close-up work, peak performance was between f/5.6 and f/8.

The near symmetrical design ensured that it performed well when reversed onto a

bellows or extension tubes. I have used it this way successfully for shooting

macro images on 6x9 cm and 4x5" formats.

 

"Some confusion exists as to which Micro-Nikkor is the one with adjusting

aperture. Partly this is due to the term "Micro-Nikkor P" used in Nikon

literature, whilst the lens itself only is engraved "Auto". At least my sample

is. Since there is an immediate successor without the compensating feature,

but "P" designation, identifying this model is not easy. However, a lens with

chrome barrel, magnification factors printed in light blue, and hill-and-dale

focusing and aperture collars likely is the real thing."

Apologies in advance for what may turn out to be the most ignorant

question on this forum in, well, at least a couple days . . .

 

When I try to drag images from the default "all pictures" file into

new files I've created in PictureProject, I get the circle-slash icon

and can't drag the photo. If I go into the menus and try to copy the

photo to the new file that way, I get a pop-up menu that looks like

it should work, but the little "OK" button never activates, so I

can't move the photo. Basically, I can't sort any of my photos into

different portfolios.

 

This started as an anoying curiosity, but now that I've burned off a

few hundred shots worth keeping, I want to be able to organize them.

 

The tutorial disk is useless with this problem. I follow the

instructions exactly, but the software won't accept the commands.

 

Is there something I'm missing? Am I the only one who has this

problem?

 

Jeff

 

PS--if you're about to say "switch to Photoshop," don't bother. I'm

going there, but can't afford it at the moment. In the meantime I

have about 1,000 uncategorized photos on my machine.

I'm considering buying an SU-4 wireless slave for use with my D70 and

SB-28 flash unit. I want to set up the SB-28 about 50 feet away to

light kayakers playing on a stationary wave and use the pop-up flash

on the D70 to trigger it. I want to do this in moderate light--say

f/5.6 at 1/30th and 200 iso. The intention is to blur the water and

freeze the kayaker with the flash.

 

My question: will the little pop-up flash be enough to trigger the SU-

4 from that range with that much ambient light? What other options

would I have without busting the bank?

 

Thanks,

 

Jeff

I think we can borrow a rule from medicine, and say, "First, do no harm."

 

After that I really think it depends on each individual's artistic and ethical judgement. If moving some grass aside makes for a better shot I generally will do it. That's my choice based on, 1. the fact it causes no significant damage, and, 2. being comfortable with my choice to alter the "found" scene.

 

Personally, I would not pick up a snail and put it on a better background. They are slimy. Besides, doing so would exceed my personal limits about how much I'm willing to manipulate a nature photo. Others might choose to set up such a shot, and so long as it causes no harm, I support their choice to do so. If the picture was good I would admire it and compliment the photographer, even if I would not choose to make the same picture.

In North Carolina check out Merchant's Millpond. Its a little state park with a really cool Cypress swamp, about 50 miles inland. I will add my recommendation for Assateague/Chincoteague as well. Also some of the smaller barrier islands on the Delmarva south of Chincoteague are good too.

 

I've not spent much time in Florida, but there was a lot of wildlife (birds, 'gators, dolphins) at the Space Center when I was there in January a few years back. They're fairly well habituated to people, so easy to get close to.

Our Congress, in its wisdom, has chosen to under-fund the national parks. So even though we and millions more outdoor-loving Americans are paying our taxes, parks across the country are strapped for cash. One way they try to make up for it is to raise entrance fees, and the cost of concessionairs' permits. (BTW, America is not alone. When I mentioned to a Canadian in Jasper Park last year that even though the park was nickel-and-diming me constantly, I didn't mind much because the money was going to support the park. Nope, he said. Ninety percent of the fees went straight into Provincial and Federal coffers.)

 

Before we get too upset with park regulation of workshop permits, we should remember that the parks are a limited resource. You can only fit so many people in there before it gets full. For the most part, the parks, BLM and other land-management agencies in the US try very hard (too hard in my book) to protect the economic rights of those who make their livings on public land. In particular I'm thinking about river access, where the park service reserves a disproportionate number of permits for commercial outfitters, leaving private boaters high and dry. There's no wait required to book a commercial float down the Grand Canyon, but if you want to go on your own the wait is over ten years, and it costs $100 to get on the list.

Does anyone have a photo or first-hand description of the discoloration? I'm curious to see the extend of the damage.

Ciao Fabrizio,

 

I have wondered if such "in camera dodging" was possible for night photography situations. I thought I must be crazy and never tried it. Now I will! I suppose the card should be black?

Ahh, the famous "Love Boat Moon," sure to evoke fond memories in all aficionados of 70's-era sitcoms. Unfortunately, those scenes were shot in a studio for the very good reason that the brightness differential between the moon and its reflection is too great to reproduce well on film.

 

Your results bear this out: The moon is over-exposed while the reflection and cloud are under-exposed. My suggestion is to use graduated neutral-density filters to hold back the moon's exposure. A good spot meter would help you decide where to start. With luck and a fair amount of bracketing, you might succeed in getting both the moon and its reflection to reproduce on film much the same way it looked in real life. The cloud won't show if you use this technique.

 

Black and white gives you more options for this type of photograph (remember AA's "Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico"), but even then you'll need to be a wizard with filters and in the darkroom.

Rob,

 

You can shoot with slow film using your slow zoom, on a tripod. For most landscape work you will want to stop down the lens to get better depth of field, so the max aperture is irrelevant. This is true whether using the zoom or your fast 50mm prime. Setting up the tripod can be a hassle, and carrying it always is. For me, if the scene is worth photographing, it's worth the time to set up the tripod, to compose carefully and to meter critically. Of course when I'm on vacation I often blaze away without the tripod on things that I know won't make great photographs, but that I just want to have a record of.

 

As far as wildlife is concerned, you're very unlikely to get any really stunning shots with your 200 of truly wild animals. But never fear -- every national park I know of has roadside herds of photogenic mammals. I got frame-filling headshots of bighorn sheep with a 200 two weeks ago in Jasper N.P. The trick here is to watch your background. Crop out the road, the row of RVs and fellow tourists. Then zoom out and shoot a few more frames that puts the whole circus in context. Stay in the car, and don't try this with bears.

I'll defer to others on species 'cause I'm not a bird expert. However I go to Assateague all the time. Was there Saturday surfing my kayak with dolphins. That was a kick. End digression . . . .

 

The bay side of the island is rich in wildfowl. The park has installed dozens of public duck blinds, which outside of the hunting season provide excellent cover for bird and wildlife photography. Some can be reached without a boat, but IMO the best way to get there is by canoe or sea kayak. There is never anyone in them during the off season, so you can pick the ones that provide the best light and background. Check with the park office to make sure there's not an open hunting season. The birds will be more shy during the season, and you might get shot.

I'll be travelling in the Glacier-Banff-Jasper corridor next week.

I'm planning a couple overnight canoe trips along the way and will be

picking up the canoe from an outfitter in Invemere, BC, near the

Columbia's headwaters. This is supposed to be the largest continuous

wetlands in North America, with hundreds of bird species and other

wildlife. That's as much as I know but would like to hear more. Can

anybody who's been there give me the photographic Beta for this area?

I'm most interested in scenics and large mamals, since I won't have

the lenses for birds (200mm is my longest glass this trip.)

 

Later in the trip I will spend time in/around Banff, Lake Louise and

Jasper, including a conoe trip on the Bow from L. Louise to Banff,

and possibly another on the Athabaska in Jasper. Any photo-specific

info or advice on those areas also appreciated. Thanks, folks.

By the way, Spud (the travellin' tuber) has not created any custom data fields.

Please do not change the top-rated photographer page and take away the most important goal in my lif right now -- catching up to Mr. Potato Head the Travelling Tuber.

I think you can get spot-on exposures if you're careful with your metering. In this situation I would use the camera on manual and set exposure with the spot meter. Meter on the faces of the kayakers when possible. Most kayaks, regardless of color, come in fairly close to 18 percent reflectance, so they also can be used as a reference point. (just beware of glare on wet hulls). You're absolutely right that the ocean will throw off your meter reading much of the time, depending on time of day and the direction of light.

 

If you have clear skies, Provia should be plenty fast enough. In overcast a faster film might be called for. I don't have much experience with these so I won't recommend one. However I would make sure I have enough of both types to do the whole shoot with either. You'll know which to use when you get on the water and start metering. How much faster shutterspeed you'll need above your normal land-based rule also depends on the conditions and the type of boat you're shooting from. Show up and trust your own judgement.

 

Bring the longest glass you have in case the whales show.

I think when you're bringing a group of people into a national park, especially for commercial purposes, you've gotta alert the authorities, if only to be sure they don't interrupt your workshop.

 

Those of us who are more independant have a somewhat different situation. Here's how I often handle it. I call in advance to ask if a permit or notification is required to shoot with a tripod. If the answer is yes, I get the permit. If the answer is no, I say thank you very much, and get the name of the person I'm speaking with. That way if challenged I can say, very politely, that I talked with "Joyce" at headquarters and she assured me it was okay to photograph here.

 

If the answer is that photography is just plain forbidden, I then make a personal choice about whether I want to break the rules. If the prohibition is there to protect wildlife or the environment I honor it, no questions asked. If the prohibition is more arbitrary -- such as Sorin's example of a popular beach that's closed after dark -- I might just do it anyway. If I get caught I apologize to the officer, say I didn't know and pack up without any further fuss. The worst that's ever come from this is having a capitol policeman tell me that I could be fined $50 for photographing the U.S. Capitol without a tripod permit. As I packed up my stuff (I'd already got the shot) he asked how long I'd been there before they responded. It had been about five minutes, but I told him less than a minute -- loud enough for his sergeant to hear. We both left happy.

For your stop in Oregon, you might try Crater Lake.

Probably too late, but . . . . Rent a quality prime and use fast (eg 400 iso) print film. Why make it harder than it has to be? There's a place in Juneau that has a pro 300 2.8 with two converters, 1.4 and 2.0. Look in the archives under Alaska and Bear -- you'll find a thread by me with the name of the shop. I think they quoted me $35 a day. Even if you buy the converter for the rest of the trip, rent the big glass for Pack Creek. Don't forget tripod, esp. in SE, 'cause light levels are frequently quite low.

I would choose destinations based on photographic opportunities as my first priority. Yes you will encounter a lot of tourists at the NPs, but if you make avoiding them your only objective you're likely to miss out on a lot of great shots. If you hike in a half-mile at any of the major parks you really will leave 99 percent of the tourons behind. Don't disregard areas outside of the national parks, especially for macros and wildlife. The national forest system is huge and has millions (yes, millions) of miles of roads into uninhabited forests. Don't tell your rental car company where you're going, though!

 

I would also forget about hotels -- stop at Wal-Mart and get a cheap tent, bag and sleeping pad for less than $200. By your second night camping you'll break even. Give it to goodwill when you leave, the Karma will bring you good light.