richard_lewis3

November 4, 2009

And now Windows 7 final retail copy.

July 22, 2009

Works for Win 7 RC as well!

April 26, 2009

William First, I applaud your concern for the bride looking at a very important day in her life. (She may feel it is THE most important one at this point. Who knows how she'll feel later?) Your empathy is what keeps customers feeling like people and not cattle in today's intense business environment, which is exacerbated by this problem economy. Whether her concerns are social, financial, or something else may best define your best approach to satisfy both her and your business going forward.

My suggestion would be, as mentioned by others, to approach her up front by asking her why she wants all of them. Then tailor your answer to the cause. If it's financial, I'd point out that you're working on a very tight margin and have given her the best pricing based on the images she's received, or will receive if this hasn't yet happened. If you need to do any additional work with her project, you'll need additional compensation at a fair hourly basis. (Do this no matter what the reason for her additional request, including other than financial concerns!) If it's social and she thinks something has been missed that's important to her, the approach suggested above of letting her review the extras, without releasing them, could likely work. I'd suggest even culling these as well to eliminate any that would be embarrassing to you or your business.

In any event, it's important to strike a balance between meeting the concerns of the customer (since the best advertising you can obtain is a satisfied customer), and maintaining good business policies and practices. Once you start changing the latter for one customer, you have the potential for that changing other customer's expectations, both prior and future ones. But remember that one of the advantages of being a small business, or sole proprietorship, is the ability to be flexible and meet different customer needs with different approaches, so "most" are well satisfied. You'll never satisfy everyone, but that shouldn't keep you from trying. Good luck!

February 20, 2009

To really answer your question, I suggest you do a much more in-depth research of the two lenses. To assist you with your work, here's a terrific site that has every imaginable link to Nikkor lenses including history, specs, tests and reviews, etc. And if you back up the link to the home page, you can find almost anything Nikon related, as well. Here's the link:

<a href="http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_lenses_general.htm">http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_lenses_general.htm</a>

February 2, 2009

M I've used the 80-200 f2.8 AFS from it's introduction for a great variety of sports shooting, from kids soccer to college rugby and most things in-between. It's still used in preference over the 70-200 VR for many situations since it vignettes less, and I think you'll find this a great lens for anything within it's focal length range. With the D300 it responses instantly to AF and, depending on whether your sample varies from mine, will provide excellent images even wide open, with superb subject isolation and bokeh at f2.8 to f4. However if you can keep the shutter speed at least at 1/250 or above, then I'd suggest stopping down to f4-f5.6 if you don't need maximum subject isolation. With the D300, you'll be able to shoot at ISO's from 200-800 with minimal noise, and even 1600 if needed, with only slightly more degradation. So you can bump the ISO to achieve the maximum shutter speed possible and still keep everything else equal. If you can, I'd suggest shooting at 1/1000th or faster for any real action.

As for framing, many beginning sports shooters frame too large, resulting in the subject taking up too little of the frame. It's OK to frame "tight" and to include only part of the subject, if it provides the maximum impact for the moment's action. The above image of the two girls and soccer ball is a good example of excellent framing. It includes both subjects and the ball, which defines the sport and the moment. But it doesn't include any excess around the subjects.

Just remember, many of the best sports images capture not only the action, but the expression of the moment. One of the best ones from the Super Bowl images on The Frame shows Hines Ward smiling as he catches a pass in the first quarter. If it's the one he caught on the very first play, then no wonder he's smiling! Here's a link to it from Rob Galbraith's website:

<a href="http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/photos/2009/02/019144.html#more">http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/photos/2009/02/019144.html#more</a>

The above image is 4th in the sequence. Notice how so many of these superb images include an expression that defines the moment, and in many cases includes only the upper torso of the athlete(s). Another one is Larry Fitzgerald's expression in the fifth image from the bottom. These are true examples where a picture is worth 1000 words!

Continuing with equipment recommendations, the suggestion to use a monopod is also a good one. It will provide enough additional stability to make a real difference in your results, yet shouldn't be much of an impediment to your movement, whether shooting or moving through the crowd. If I have to move any distance, I just compact it and sling it over my shoulder with the lens hanging down over my back. Easier to keep track of it that way unless I'm in a tight crowd. Then I hold it against my chest with the lens over my shoulder parallel to the ground. Either way works fine and it's easy to get ready to shoot again. Just remember, if it's extended, keep it vertically along your side when you're moving so it doesn't stick out and hit someone! It will also be a real advantage if you decide to use a TC with this lens. But if you do, I'd restrict it to the Nikkor TC14EII, and perhaps the TC17Eii, but not the TC20EII. You'll see too much degradation of the image quality with the TC20, and you may find the TC17 too difficult to handle with fast moving action. But the TC14 should work well for you, but only use it if you need the extended range.

Finally, the suggestion to take along your shorter zoom is very good. You'll most likely want some images that show the entire "sweep" of the event, and for that a wide angle is needed. And depending on how close you're able to approach the action, the shorter range may be good. But I'd guess most of the time you'll be better served with the 80-200 range, since in most outdoor sports shooting (assuming this is outdoor!) longer is better. Contrary to others comments about this lens being too long for their events, if you are shooting tight enough for the best images, you're unlikely to be inside this lenses range for more than random moments with outdoor sports action, unless you're lucky enough to be at a spot like right beside the goal in soccer. But then you'll miss all the other action on the rest of the field and will likely be moving along the sideline much of the time. That's why a shorter zoom is great to have along, to be able to choose whichever suits the moment. And remember, there will be lots of moments ahead as the kids grow up. Just be sure to take advantage of as many of them as possible! Good luck!

January 18, 2009

Betty

Rather than accept this poor performance, I'd suggest you check it out further. Either find a friend who has a current Nikon DSLR, or even a Canon, and compare meter readings under the same conditions with equivelant lenses. Or visit a local dealer and compare your D300 with a store sample. That way you'll be much more informed as to exactly how yours should meter. Unfortunately, with the quality control problems I've experienced over the years with all manner of digital gear, my mantra is "test, test and re-test", then return if it isn't correct!

January 16, 2009

From my experience and from various web postings, the QA issue is extensive with this lens. Here's a link to my original test as posted above, with images of results, on Nikonians:

<a href="http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=146&topic_id=133238&mesg_id=133238&page">http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=146&topic_id=133238&mesg_id=133238&page</a>=

You may need to be registered to view it, as they recently changed their policy on this. I also received a second lens that had the same problem as the first, but worse! And there's a recent post on this forum dated 1/12 that speaks to this issue as well. Unless you really need the f2.8 aperture, IMO you'll be much better served finding another lens to cover this focal length.

January 16, 2009

Your problem sounds like the one I had with the first D300 body I received when it first came out. It was consistently over-exposing in matrix mode by anywhere from 1/3 to 1-1/2 stops. After extensive testing and comparison with my other Nikon bodies, which all showed consistently equivelant exposure in matrix mode, I returned it for a different body, which meters the same as my other bodies. It was obviously a defective body and your's may be as well. Also, center metering was somewhat a problem, but spot metering seemed to be OK on the original sample. I'd suggest returning it for another body if possible and if not, sending it in to Nikon for repair.

January 16, 2009

If you're registered at Nikonians website, you might want to take an additional look at this review I wrote, and the comments on it, on this lens compared to the Nikkor 12-24, and the Sigma 10-20:

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 Lens Test vs Nikon 12-24 vs Sigma 10-20 as of 5-6-08

The new Tokina AT-X Pro DX 11-16mm f2.8 Aspherical Lens has produced much anticipation among Nikon DX sensor DSLR body users, and I was one of them. To satisfy my interest in how this wide angle focal range would compare to its competitors, I’ve been eager to evaluate them side by side. Fortunately, through my favorite supplier's usual excellent service, I have just received my Tokina 11-16 lens and am now able to do so. The following are the results of this evaluation. (As a disclaimer, there was/is no “quid pro quo” involved in this or any other equipment review/evaluation of mine. I purchase all equipment for my own use and am under no obligation to any brand, manufacturer, or supplier. The following review is solely my personal opinion and perspective, based on my own photographic experience and/or use of included equipment.)

As this review begins, it’s important to clarify what it is and isn’t. The Nikon and Sigma lenses have been fully and thoroughly vetted by a number of respected pro photographers, including my two favorites, Thom Hogan and Bjorn Rorslett. Needless to say, I am not attempting to compare this review to theirs, and in fact have benefited greatly from their evaluations of these two lenses and a variety of other equipment. While the performance of these will be evaluated relative to the Tokina 11-16, that’s not the purpose of this writing, and will not include any specifications or technical lens data on any lenses, except when relevant to observable performance issues. The primary goal is to evaluate the sample of this Tokina lens “in hand”, and do so in a manner that provides a practical comparative evaluation that will benefit those interested in this DX focal range. For lens specifications and technical information, please visit the respective company websites. For more extensive reviews of the Nikkor and Sigma lenses, and others, visit these websites:

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html</a>

<a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/index.html">http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/index.html</a>

Now to the evaluation:

LENSES INCLUDED IN THIS REVIEW (alphabetically):

Nikkor AF-S 12-24mm f/4 G IF-ED AF DX Lens

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC Lens

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Aspherical AT-X 116 Pro DX Lens

EQUIPMENT USED:

The equipment used for this evaluation includes the Nikon D300, D200, SU-800, SB-800, Gitzo 1228 CF Tripod, Arca Swiss B1 Ballhead, various RRS Arca Swiss style L-Plates and clamps, an Expodisc, as well a various other miscellaneous equipment. The lens test chart is composed of a 60” x 40” foam board for DX sensor perspective, marked from the center to right edge in 1mm proportional increments. It includes a Gretag MacBeth color chart and Norman Koran 2003 lens test charts as outlined in his website located here:

<a href="http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html#using">http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html#using</a>

TESTING PROCEDURES:

The lenses were tested from their minimum focal length through 16mm only, since this review’s main objective is to evaluate the Tokina lens, which has a maximum focal length of 16mm. They were also tested from their widest aperture through f/11 only, since lens diffraction beyond f/11 negatively impacts the results with the two DSLR bodies used. All lenses were custom white balanced prior to the test chart and brick house sequences, using the Expodisc. (Interestingly, the difference between the Custom WB and Auto WB on the D300 with flash was very minor.) Auto WB was used on any other images. When photographing the test chart, and in other tripod situations, the Nikon body used was set to Mirror Lockup and triggered by a remote release. The DSLRs were leveled with a shoe mount bubble level, and measurements taken to confirm proper centering and perpendicular lens orientation to the test chart. Also, the chart was lighted by both ambient daylight and by two SB-800, one on either side, with diffusers aimed into umbrellas and triggered with an SU-800 set to TTL with -1 EV compensation. Finally, the outside sequence was photographed during overcast conditions with light remaining consistently flat to minimize exposure differences.

FACTORS EVALUATED:

1) Lens construction and operation/handling

2) Auto Focus/Manual Focus operation/performance

3) Resolution both center and edges

4) Exposure variance/Light falloff

5) Color rendering per color chart

6) Custom WB and other settings

7) Color contrast and accuracy

8) Chromatic Aberration and Flare

EVALUATION RESULTS:

1) Lens construction and operation/handling:

All three lenses are well constructed and feel solid in handling. The Tokina is heavier than the other two, with more metal. But both the Nikon and Sigma are well built, with the Nikon taller like the Tokina, and slightly thinner and lighter than the Sigma, which is the shortest. The Tokina and Nikon include indented front caps while the Sigma’s does not, being thinner and more difficult to remove even from the sides. The Sigma also has a finicky rear cap that only mounts from one position, instead of from three positions as do the other two. Finally, the lens hoods on the Tokina and Nikon slip easily into place and lock securely with a click, while the Sigma is difficult to mount properly, constantly being mis-aligned, and, when it is in place, is very tight fitting. Other than these complaints, all these components work as intended.

As for general operation and handling, all three mount quickly, easily, and securely to the DSLR body. All are “G” designs with no aperture ring on the lens, and have IF elements with no filter ring movement during focus. However, during zooming, all three move somewhat, with the Tokina and Nikkor doing so within the confines of the lens barrel, and the Sigma extending the front ring slightly. As for zoom and focus ring placement on the barrel, while the Nikon places the focus ring to the rear at the mount with the zoom ring to the front, the Tokina and Sigma use the more traditional reverse orientation. (The Sigma’s focus ring rotates in an opposite direction to the other two.) Either ring orientation/rotation direction works, and it’s just a matter of what feels best. If you’re used to the older Nikkor zooms, the traditional front focus/rear zoom of the Sigma and Tokina will feel more natural, except for the focus direction on the Sigma. But since many newer Nikkors now use the reversed ring position, you may already be familiar with the feel of this Nikkor lens ring placement.

2) Auto Focus/Manual Focus operation/performance:

The Tokina AF is driven by the DSLR AF motor, as opposed to the Nikkor and Sigma, and this lens isn’t compatible with the D40 and similar bodies. Tokina also takes a totally different approach to the AF/Manual switching by implementing it into the focus ring. To switch from AF to manual, you pull the focus ring toward the body, and visa versa. Unfortunately, there is no manual override during AF operation. It’s either in AF mode or Manual mode. Also, with this sample, the focus ring didn’t always positively active AF operation. Even when it seemed to click into place, AF was occasionally less than accurate. It sometimes took several cycles before it started to AF properly, and on one occasion it took dismounting and remounting the lens to return it to proper operation. (Just in case, the lens contacts were cleaned, with no change.) And of major concern was that this lens also experienced difficulty focusing at certain apertures, as will be discussed later. This created a real problem with its overall performance and ultimately its desirability.

The Sigma on the other hand, doesn’t include a separate AF/Manual focus switch on the lens barrel for Nikon bodies, and also won’t allow manual override with the focus ring during AF operation. In fact, it constantly “fights with you” if you try to do so, jerking the lens back to the predetermined AF position. The only way to operate this lens manually is to change the focus mode to manual or “M” via the body’s front selector switch, which precludes the more convenient AF override with manual lens adjustment/fine tuning via the lens focus ring as on the Nikkor. On the positive side, this lens incorporates an internal HS motor which is similar to the Nikkor’s AFS AF motor, with AF quickly and accurately acquired.

The Nikkor implements AFS high speed operation, which is compatible with the D40 and similar bodies, and uses a AF/Manual or Manual two position switch on the lens barrel, which is different than the other two lenses, but similar to most Nikkor designs. It also allows for manual override during AF operation, with the focus ring easily switching the lens to manual focus mode as you rotate it with the AF activated. AF was always accurate and snapped into place, and MF was accurate and easy to implement.

3) Resolution both center and edges:

As the test chart examples reveal, all three lenses exhibit very good resolution at the center at f/5.6 and above. However, it’s at the edges and the extreme wide aperture that problems arise with two of them, the Sigma for edge resolution, and the Tokina for f/2.8 and f/4 apertures.

The Tokina’s lens resolution is very poor at certain settings. It’s possible the results are unique to this certain sample, but I’m unable to determine that possibility. The overall behavior was erratic depending on the lens settings, but consistent with these results throughout the testing process. Of the discrepancies, the worst performance occurred at f/2.8 to f/4 for both 11mm and 16mm, the tested focal lengths. The results may have been exacerbated by exposure variances, which will be discussed next. Suffice it to say that the images were definitely not focused properly, and show elements of ghosting or double imaging. It’s difficult to define this without seeing the images, some of which will be posted accordingly.

The Sigma is very good in the center focus at the focal lengths of 11mm and 16mm at f/4 and improved to excellent by f/8. But as mentioned by several reviewers, its edge sharpness doesn’t hold up as well and is consistently of slightly lower quality, but not drastically so. Overall, it has very good to excellent resolution in much of the image area.

The Nikkor is the most consistent of these three lenses, with center sharpness coming in as excellent throughout, except for very good at f4 and 12mm. The edges also exhibited consistently fine behavior, with only minimal drop in resolution, even at f/4 for 12mm, where I still rank it as good to very good. Overall there is very little variance in the excellent resolution for this lens throughout it’s tested range of 12-16mm and f/4-f/11.

4) Exposure variance:

At smaller apertures, all three lenses expose about 1/3 stop within each other for the same scene and lighting. At wider apertures, and depending on the focal length, the Tokina and Sigma exhibit more variance, with the Nikkor remaining stable throughout its range. (Note: Light falloff from center to corners was not part of this evaluation.) Here are the specifics:

The Tokina exhibits severe exposure variance from f2.8 through f11, the minimum aperture tested, at 11mm, the shortest focal length. There’s an immediate falloff of about -.5EV then it continues to about -7EV to -1.0EV, depending on the overall scene. At 16mm, the maximum focal length, there is much less total scene light falloff. But overall, the exposure varies widely from scene to scene, depending on the focal length and the aperture.

The Sigma exhibits some scene light falloff from f4 to f5.6, and then stabilizes to a more consistent level for apertures smaller than f5.6, at the 11mm focal length,. It exhibit stable exposure throughout its aperture range at the 16mm focal length.

The Nikkor starts out with less exposure than the other two lenses at wider apertures, but remains stable throughout its aperture and focal length ranges, while the other two “catch up” by lowering the exposure as the aperture becomes smaller. Its consistency is excellent.

5) Color rendering per color chart:

There are slight variations among the three lenses in their rendering of the Gretag MacBeth Color Checker Chart, but these are minimal. The most difficult for all to render is the cyan square, directly above the black square in the lower right corner. They all tend to exhibit a bit more blue than is required, to varying degrees. Other than that, they show reasonable accuracy. (For an example of the Tokina Color Chart results, see the original product posting for a sample image.)

6) Custom WB and other settings:

Both the Nikkor and Sigma lenses were able to achieve Custom White Balance settings on the first attempt throughout their aperture ranges tested. However, the Tokina wasn’t able to do so at f11 in spite of repeated attempts, no matter the focal length. It was able to do so easily at maximum aperture. Also, all seemed to perform well with other WB settings, including Auto WB, which produced a result very close to the custom setting achieved with the Expodisc. The only other negative influence with results came from the erratic exposure problems by the Tokina lens. Whether this was due to a faulty product couldn’t be determined, but it was disconcerting based on the anticipated positive performance this lens had in the media.

7) Color contrast and accuracy:

The Nikkor exhibited slightly stronger contrast given the same scene exposure. But again, the predominant difference in these lenses regarding contrast and accuracy was dependent on exposure variance. Since the Nikkor was consistent throughout its range, it was the easiest to “set and forget”. The Sigma required some thought to achieve the same results when using maximum apertures, and at minimum focal lengths, the Tokina required constant adjustment to achieve the same results, although it was more consistent at longer focal lengths.

8) Chromatic Aberration and Flare:

As other reviewers have determined, the Sigma performs very well when it comes to chromatic aberrations. The surprise was how well the Nikkor also performed in this regard, showing very little CA, essentially the same amount as the Sigma. The Tokina was reasonably well controlled with regard to CA in most situations as well, but showed slightly more effect than either of the others. It also had more problems with flare, though not to a great extent in my limited observations. The Nikkor seemed to handle flare the best, but this wasn’t tested extensively. For flare results, and other details on wave distortion, corner light falloff and other particulars, please refer to other reviewers. (Note: The D200 was used for evaluating CA, since the D300 processing of Jpegs includes CA correction, which is quite effective. Image quality was set to RAW + Jpeg Basic.)

Conclusion:

Unfortunately, I was seriously disappointed with the performance of the Tokina lens. Its design seems perfect to minimize the problems other Tokina’s have exhibited, such as CA and flare. And to this extent, it seems to perform better than other designs, based on my readings, not personal testing. However, the performance in the primary area of lens resolution, particularly at a wide open aperture of f2.8 to f4, my primary reason for considering this lens, was a real “bummer”. Whether due to faulty production, or other defect, the results wide open are soft, and exhibit severe ghosting. Other distortion, particularly CA, is evident along the edges, even including low contrast area differences. This coupled with the erratic AF behavior created a “no go” appraisal for this lens. It has been returned.

On the positive side, this test confirmed other reviewer’s positive remarks regarding the comparative results between the Nikkor and the Sigma wide angle zoom lenses. They both perform very well optically, with comparable results in color rendering, contrast (at most settings), CA, AF operation, and construction. While the Sigma has an advantage in wider focal range, and more compact size, the Nikkor excels with better resolution, not only in the center, but even more so at the edges.

(See the attached cropped images of the Koran Lens Test Chart in the initial product posting. These are crops of the one Koran test chart strip located in the left lower center of the complete test chart, which is shown in the image on the bottom right. The top right image is the Nikkor crop, the bottom left the Sigma and the bottom middle the Tokina. All are at 11/12mm and at f4 aperture. In the Nikkor image crop, you can still make out the web address and Norman Koran’s name, while with the Sigma image it’s more difficult, and in the Tokina it’s essentially illegible. Once at f5.6 and above, the three lenses show similar center resolution results.)

The Nikkor also performs better than all three lenses, including the Sigma, with consistent exposure throughout its aperture and focal length ranges, has a substantially better manual focusing system with immediate AF override, as well as positive manual focus switching on the lens barrel. This avoids confusion, particularly with other lenses, that may occur with the Sigma when the focus mode switch needs to be returned to the AF-S or AF-C position after manual focusing. And finally, although easily remedied, the Nikkor has better lens caps included, as it should for it’s substantially greater price. But for me, all these performance positives and ergonomic nuances add up. My choice is the Nikkor, in spite of the price difference.

End of original article…………………………………………………………………………..

NOTE: Nikonians Website Posting additions:

Intro to Nikonians post:

After an extensive hands on test of this lens in comparison with the Nikkor 12-24 and Sigma 10-20, I've reluctantly returned it. Whether due to faulty production processes, or other defects, it simply didn't perform well in several areas, including poor resolution and ghosting at f2.8 to f4, erratic AF operation, and substantial exposure variance throughout the focal lengths. Since many of the design characteristics of this lens indicate the potential for a strong performance in the problem areas listed above, there's hope that Tokina will address whatever caused this sample's problems and the future issues of the lens will eventually provide good results. An additional complete evaluation can be found at this following link, which will also eventually include extensive images of the complete test chart results in my gallery there. I'll also post some similar images to my Nikonians gallery, but they may be limited by the size restrictions. Here's the link:

<a href="http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/reviewpost/showproduct.php?product=133">http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/reviewpost/showproduct.php?product=133</a>

And here's the text of my evaluation, with six supporting images. (Note: The lenses pictured are from left to right, the Nikkor 17-35 f2.8 AFS, the Nikkor 12-24 f4 AFS, the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 AF and the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 HSM. The cropped images of the test chart are top to bottom, Tokina 11mm f4, Sigma 11mm f4 and Nikkor 12-24 at 12mm f4. The last image is an example of the complete test chart including the GTMB ColorChecker from the Tokina test at 11mm and f2.8.) Please be prepared for a lengthy article. Thanks for reading!

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 Lens Test vs Nikon 12-24 vs Sigma 10-20 as of 5-6-08

Replacement text of second to last paragraph in original article:

(See the attached cropped images of the Koran Lens Test Chart in the initial product posting. These are crops of the one Koran test chart strip located in the left lower center of the complete test chart, which is shown in the image on the bottom. As mentioned above, the top image of the crops of the Koran chart is the Tokina, the next is the Sigma and the third is the Nikkor. All are at 11/12mm and at f4 aperture. In the Nikkor image crop, you can still make out the web site listing and Norman Koran’s name, while with the Sigma image it’s more difficult, and in the Tokina it’s essentially illegible. Once at f5.6 and above, the three lenses show similar center resolution results.)

Nikonians image links:

<a href="http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/94086.jpg">http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/94086.jpg</a>

<a href="http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/94087.jpg">http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/94087.jpg</a>

<a href="http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/94088.jpg">http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/94088.jpg</a>

<a href="http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/94089.jpg">http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/94089.jpg</a>

<a href="http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/94090.jpg">http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/94090.jpg</a>

<a href="http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/94091.jpg">http://www.nikonians.org/dcfp/user_files/94091.jpg</a>

November 30, 2008

Since this thread popped up while I was doing a Google search attempting to confirm the date code on the Nikon EN-EL3e battery, I wanted to correct the post by David Hartman above regarding the shelf life of Lithium-ion batteries such as these. According to a variety of expert sources, including the following linked Wikipedia article, Lithium-ion batteries have a variable shelf life depending on the manner in which they are stored, including storage temperature and current battery charge state. Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

As the article describes, while one stored at 100% charge and 77 degrees F will lose capacity at 20% per year for recharge, i.e. shelf life, one with a charge state of 40% stored at 77 degrees F will lose only 4% per year of it's capacity. This latter example equates to a potential shelf life of over 20 years, since the 4% decline is on an ever lower total capacity. The math goes something like this: 4% of 100% the first year leaves 96% capacity. 4% of 96% the second year leaves 92.18% capacity, etc. It's essentially a reverse compounding effect which draws out the time period.

In either event, the shelf life will be substantially longer than the 2-3 years espoused by David.

PS: For clarification, the nomenclature for the disposable ones is "Lithium" without the "ion" and they have a very long shelf life from 10 to 15 years or more.

April 12, 2008

If you want very quick access to the combo, and are going to carry it without other lenses, then a great solution is the Toploader series from LowePro. I have two of them and have used several. The ones that your equipment will fit are the Toploader Zoom AW, the 70 AW, and the 75 AW.

The first two will accommodate the D200 and any 70/80-200 zoom, without the grip. You should be able to squeeze the D200 and grip attached in as well, but it's a tight fit. The 75 AW will accommodate just fine. I use the Zoom AW with my D200 and 80-200 AFS lens. The advantage of the Zoom AW is it's as deep as the 75 AW, but the same width/depth as the 70 AW. It's also lighter in weight, and includes a shoulder harness for chest mounting, as well as compatibility with LowePro belt systems, which all three are.

If you like the toploading arrangement, but need more room for another lens/body, etc., consider the Specialist 85 AW. I've used this for years as my carry-around for short field sporting events, where I need two bodies, and extra lenses and/or accessories. It enables me to keep one covered and protected, but easily available for quick access, on a belt/shoulder support system. I can keep in on my hip if there's room, or swing it around to the rear if I need to move quickly through congested areas.

I've found all the above, as well as many other shoulder bags and backpacks to be well made, and contrary to an earlier poster, have had no quality issues with the LowePro line. I consider them to be part of the same premier league as ThinkTank, Tamrac, Domke, etc. Good luck on your choices!

April 12, 2008

As a Chicago area photographer, I've visited all the big houses and many smaller camera/photography stores from Merrillville Indiana to the Wisconsin border over the years. From the suggestions made above, I've only found four that really provide any decent in-house stock that applies to today's digital shooter. These are Helix on Racine ONLY, Central Camera, Calumet near north, and Calumet Bensenville.

Although you can find an occasional suprise, perhaps like LaGrange Camera mentioned above, that will stock something of interest, none have a broad enough variety for what you seem to be seeking. This is particularly true of used lenses. In this regard, just make sure any used lens is compatible with your D80. It would probably be smart to take your manual along so you can refer to the pages in the back that list incompatible lenses.

Finally, I agree with the recommendation to check internet prices at each store you intend to visit before doing so, as they will often have lower prices, and will honor them in-store. I've found this to be true particularly at Helix. Good luck and enjoy Chicago!

April 12, 2008

See this the following statement in an article by Rob Galbraith regarding new SSD for computers, which also applies in general to other flash memory, including CF cards:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9309-9384

Note the statement:

"What you'll see is that the Crucial 32GB SSD writes fast and reads even faster, that it doesn't slow down much at all when it's full and that to take advantage of its speed you'll need to deploy the SSD in a configuration that's up for the job. "

April 12, 2008

Here's a link to building your own MC-31 connector, which includes a table of the pin connections for the Nikon 10-pin port. If you scroll down, it also includes a link to a diagram of the port/connector with the pin numbers labeled. Good luck!

http://www.k-i-s.net/article.php?article=20

April 12, 2008

Unfortunately, for Nikon only the D1 series will sync at speeds above 1/500th. The D70 will sync at up to and including 1/500th with Nikon flash units. It will sync higher with undedicated flashes. The rest of the Nikon DSLRs will only sync at a max of 250th for full power. Most incorporate the high speed flash mode, but this only provides for progressively lower and lower light outputs, depending on the shutter speed. Here's a good article from Ken Rockwell on this issue. For all the complaints I hear about him, he's still has one of the most prolific photography websites out there with most of it very accurate. It's often his strong opinions, particularly when he hasn't actually done testing on the equipment, that cause people to be offended. Here's the link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm

July 3, 2006

Peter

My first stop in checking out Nikkor lenses is Borjn Rorslett's site at the following link:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html

Not the best review of the 70-300 G lens. Good luck.

July 3, 2006

Keith

As I use both the D70 (same sensor as the D50) and the D200, I can say that the additional pixel density in the D200 is very noticable, particularly with enlargement and/or cropping. As a sports shooter, with the recent track season, I was sometimes well over 100 meters from the runner's start of the High Hurdles and Dash, shooting their approach to the finish line headon. Even with a 400mm lens, I'd sometimes crop early in their run if something unusual occurred, such as a colision with another runner, etc. Having the additional pixel density of the D200 makes a real difference in this situation. This and other improvements in the D200 make it a great camera, particularly for the price compared to the D2X. If you can afford it I'm sure you'll find it substantially better in all regards than the D50. The only thing to remember is that it takes Compact Flash Cards, not SD cards, so you'd need to upgrade these as well.

I also agree with the comments above regarding the resolution ability of the lenses you own. They may not provide the best images possible, compared to "pro" Nikon glass, with the D200 or any of the higher MP cameras, as these cameras show up any lens flaws, most noticably poor sharpness or resolution. While I have the 18-70 DX and use it on both the D70 and D200 without problems, it's not as sharp as the 28-70 2.8 AFS, or the 17-35 2.8 AFS. Also, the Nikon 70-300 G isn't up to the same quality as any of the 80-200 or 70-200 2.8 AFS glass, or the 80-400 VR, particularly at the long end as you have stated. The Sigma 10-20 should do well with resolution though. You might consider upgrading the telephoto if you shoot over 200mm, but if not you'll probably be OK with the D200. Good luck!

June 8, 2006

Yaron

Good feedback! I've been looking for an excellent quality low light lens, and once again tried the Nikon 50 f1.4. It again had excessive CA throughout and I returned it. Am considering this lens, and pleased to see your results show NO CA! How is other distortion? From you examples, it looks as if there is none, but no straight architectural shots to conclude this. Thanks

June 3, 2006

Brad

Short answer is to return the camera for replacement if within the retailers return period, or for service to Nikon if not. From the pic you posted, it looks too square in shape to be dust, etc. It more likely is a piece of some material stuck to the kit lens (assuming the D50 came with one) or sensor, or a defective chip with a group of pixels not functioning. No matter what the problem, it's under warranty and should be fixed accordingly.

June 3, 2006

CA or chromatic aberration is possible in any lens, due to mis-alignment, manufacturing defects, etc., although certain lens designs are more prone to it. Just because one lens exhibits it doesn't mean it's prevalent in all lenses of that kind. I've returned even high end Nikon telephotos with CA and found their replacements clean. However, in my ongoing concern with Nikon's quality control, which has deteriorated substantially recently, particularly with regard to lenses, I strongly recommend thorough testing immediately upon receipt, to allow for return within the retailers policy period.

May 31, 2006

Jonathan

It would be worth finding out how he did it, since it mirrors your interest. If a 500 f4 will work, it's by far a better option for mobility and long term value. Oh, I assume you posted his picture with permission. My compliments to him as well.

May 30, 2006

Jonathan

Nice shot of your batsman! It looks like the 500mm was working for you there. Too bad it won't in the upcoming event. And yes, I agree the Nikon D200 and Sigma 300-800 would certainly work for your purposes, assuming there's enough light for a shutter speed fast enough to stop the action, and you can work from a fixed tripod position. Much more friendly from a financial consideration as well.

May 30, 2006

Mark

We sure are going back and forth on the D2X aren't we! LOL I understand perfectly how it works, and that the pixel density of the chip isn't changed. That's why I mentioned the option of full frame with 1.4 TC and then additional cropping. However, the in camera HSC does more than just provide higher frame rate. First it allows you to frame the action more precisely for, as I mentioned earlier, "what you see is what you get". And the in camera electronics optimize the actual HSC pixels used, even though there are fewer, so there actually is some pre processing benefit. Once you have used it for sports shooting, the positive benefits become evident.

While we're saying much the same thing regarding HSC, I do disagree with your evaluation of the image quality of teleconverters in general, and specifically the 2.0 TC. While I can only speak to Nikon's versions, in all my personal experience with a broad variety of Nikon AFS lenses, both prime and zoom, there is a noticable degradation in quality between the 1.4 TC and the 2.0 TC, not just on the long lenses, but on anything in the AFS pro line. Now there are specific exceptions regarding older lenses and TC compatability, for example the Nikkor 400 3.5 and the TC300, as mentioned in Bjorn Rorslett's teleconverter review here:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html

But none of the new designs seem to have this "perfect mating" of lens and TC. While Bjorn mentions "excellent" results with the TC14E and TC20E, he notes the latter is less effective, with the primary caveat being stated in the text above where he admonishes the use of any teleconverters unless absolutely necessary. (Not withstanding your personal experience, everything I've heard from pros using Canon lenses mirrors Bjorn's views on Nikon TCs.) I believe for Jonathan's purposes, though, it will be difficult to achieve a quality cropped image without a TC of a minimum of 1.4X, or possibly 1.7X TC, or using the prime 600 lens, with the high pixel count 1Ds MarkII or the D2X with in camera crop.

Jonathan, hopefully Mark and I haven't confused the issue with our back and forth, and that you can make the selection process fun with out too much stress. I wish you well in all this!

May 29, 2006

>>Mark Chappell , may 28, 2006; 07:02 p.m.

>, such as the Nikon D2X would provide. With this body on High Speed Crop mode, you'd be able to achieve a linear FOV of about 10 1/2 feet or 78.5 square feet. Now the subject takes up almost 25% or your image, a much more workable prospect.<

With a given lens, subject, and subject distance, switching to High Speed Crop in a D2X has zero effect on the number of pixels in the image of the subject. All it does is record only the central 50% of the pixels on the sensor instead of all of them -- the same effect as shooting in normal mode and then cropping in Photoshop. Crop mode does let you shoot at much higher frame rates, which can be advantageous.<<

Mark

When you responded to this quote, you left out the critical prior part of the sentence. The entire quote reads:

>>To accomplish this you'll want the highest possible pixel count possible "or an additional in camera crop factor", such as the Nikon D2X would provide. With this body on High Speed Crop mode, you'd be able to achieve a linear FOV of about 10 1/2 feet or 78.5 square feet. Now the subject takes up almost 25% or your image, a much more workable prospect. <<

Notice the critical words "or an additional in camera crop factor". I realize the in-camera crop reduces the pixel count. The issue I was raising for Jonathan regarding the FOV and resulting subject to image size was this: He either must crop the image afterward in software, or find a way to crop it in camera. If done with post processing, he'll need a higher pixel count to achieve any professional results. If done in camera, as with the D2X, since he can use the lens at it's native "prime" focal length without any TC degradation, he can achieve excellent results even with a lower pixel count. My primary concern for Jonathan is the size of the subject within his image in the end result, and the quality of subject and overall image. It's going to be a tough nut to crack any way he approaches it. And using a 2x TC rather than a 1.4x TC is going to further degrade the image on any long lens, let along provide for questionable AF with what I would consider a fast moving subject. Any shot that will be memorable will not find the batsman stationary or even moving slowly. Unless you want blurring in the subject for effect, which can work well depending on the circumstances but better done purposely with shutter speed as opposed to lack of overall focus, he'll need good AF.

Mark, I agree with you on the 800mm, not a good choice. And Jonathan, from my perspective, the minimum focal length you'll need is a 600mm. You could shoot this with either a Canon 30D and a 1.4x TC, or prime with a Nikon D2X in HSC mode for approximately the same pixel count. The 30D would provide a slightly better FOV due to it's 1.6 crop factor vs Nikon's 1.5, and would have 8mm pixels vs about 7mm for the D2X in HSC mode, which is negligible. Or you could opt for the Nikon D200 and 1.4x TC for a higher pixel count and image quality. any of these three would provide approximately a 25% subject to image ratio as my prior post states. Another approach would be to use the Canon 1Ds MarkII and 1.4x TC or the Nikon D2X and 1.4x TC in standard mode. Tests by Bjorn Rorslett indicate relative equal performance between these two cameras, particularly if you're cropping the image.

Sounds like you may be better off financially going the Canon route. That way you can go with the cheaper 30D with 8.2mm pixels (mm = 1000x1000 or million in math speak, not camera speak for millimeters!) at a tighter crop factor of 1.6 vs the 1D Mark IIn with the same pixel count on a bigger sensor with a 1.3 crop factor. Then you can use the Canon 600mm lens with IS, add the 1.4x TC and you have the 25% subject to image ratio. May require additional cropping, but you should be good with this setup. If you want to stay with Nikon, the same setup with a D200, or the D2X in HSC mode and 600 prime provides better image quality for cropping, but without image stabilization on the lens, at least not now. Frankly, with all the sports shooting I've done, unless there's a low light situation, shutter speed beats VR every time. Good luck!

PS: Although you seem anxious to make a decision, with a year until the event, I wouldn't be in a hurry to make the purchase, not only because of the continuing trend for falling prices with anything digital, but also because of the accelerating trend in innovation!

May 28, 2006

Jonathan

Regarding the overall consideration of switching from Nikon to Canon, the above reference to the Nikkor 200-400 VR brings up an important issue. Even though I use this lens and love it, I didn't mention it because it isn't long enough for your cricket shots as you describe.

However, it is such a potent tool for both sports and wildlife use that many Canon pros are accommodating their equipment setups to use it. I recently talked to a manager of a large reputable retail and wholesale Nikon and Canon distributor, and although he is primarily a Canon user personally, he's obtaining the 200-400 VR with a Nikon body to use for an important wildlife shoot he has coming up. He also indicates that some Canon shooters are actually switching to Nikon for this lens. It's important to consider all your needs, both current and future, in determining a switch such as this.

Also, before you do decide to make any switch, I strongly recommend you consider renting the equipment from both Nikon and Canon to determine your satisfaction with it. Too expensive to not do this! And maybe you simply rent the equipment for the Barbados cricket match as well? Good Luck!

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by richard_lewis3