knut_sverre_horn

<p>Honestly, I didn't think it was possible until last Thursday, when I gave it a try with my Nikon D3s. 28 mm at f/2 and 1/15 second - check it out:<br>

http://knutsverrehorn.blogspot.com/2011/02/maneskinn-og-bilder-pa-frihand.html</p>

<p> </p>

Although I'm a Nikon user, let me say this: There's no use in having the sharpest lens if you don't use a tripod all (or most of) the time. It's safe to say that most people (including professional press photographers) don't come close to realizing the full potential of their lenses. So, if you're not a tripod freak, get the IS version.

I agree with Bob Atkins on this. Even my MF Nikkor 28 mm f2 - a very sharp lens, with better MTF rating than its slow Leica counterparts (FWIW) - becomes a rather ordinary performer when stopped down to much. It is excellent at f8 and still good at f11, but there is a quite significant drop in sharpness at f22.

There's no doubt in my mind: Get the F5 with 8 frames per second. The world is already full of perfectly sharp, perfectly exposed and dead boring bird portraits. More photographers should aim at getting good action shots - flying, fighting, displaying, etc.

Ooops.. I'm sorry for the typo, it should have read 20th. Thanks for correcting me, P.B. A Norwegian association of nature photographers (BioFoto) have annual fall foliage workshops in Rondane (Dørådalen I think), this year it was held around 23rd of september. Maybe you could join them next year? Check out http://portfolio.foto.no/bio.

Rondane NP, Jotunheimen NP and/or Trollheimen around the 10th of september. And of course the fjords in the West and the Jostedalen NP with several glaciers, notably Briksdalsbreen (= Briksdal glacier).

Jeff, using a sewing machine isn't that difficult. If you can get the rigth materials, go ahead and make a REAL blind as well.

If your 35 mm camera has got an interchangeable focusing screen, you could mask out 18x36 mm with a self-adhesive something to find out if the 1:2 ratio suits your photographic vision.

"I HAVE surched the archives"

 

Hey, who did the rewriting? I don't make typos like that!

Water magnifies - but how much? Is there a factor that can be applied

to the focal length (or the angle of view - or both) that tells me

what e.g. a 20 mm lens will correspond to when used underwater?

 

(Yes, I HAVE surched the archives, and I was a bit surprised that this

information wasn't readily available.)

 

TIA

Reportedly, Fuji is aware of the green cast that the Provia 100F adds to snow scenes, and they are about to correct it. From this summer on, the problem will cease to exist, after what I've been told - by a colleague and friend who met a british photographer who had spoken to Fuji or maybe just had spoken to someone who'd spoken to them or maybe.... well, anyway there's reason to believe that the problem does not solely relate to the processing and that the 100 F will get better.

What exactly is baiting? Moving a carcass two feet to get a better background would probably not be considered unethical by most photographers. What about moving it half a mile? Keeping it in the freezer till the weather gets better and then putting it back where you found it? I don't think it makes any sense to try and establish a set of fixed rules. My rule of thumb would be this: I've done something wrong if I am embarassed to tell people how I got the picture. I would also take extreme care so that the pictures don't lie - e.g, a raptor in winter feeding on an apparantly freshly killed growse in summer plumage.

I don't think baiting is unethical in itself. On the contrary, if it's properly done, being baited is probably much better than being chased. Still, a discussion about the dangers associated with baiting would of course be useful.

"You'll get a _much_ better result by doing a digital composite in Photoshop."

 

Hey, if the challenge and the fun of it doesn't matter at all, just buy the picture you want from a stock agency.

This constitutes a copyright violation, doesn't it? (Unless you actually shot it yourself and just can't remember where you've been.)

Check out the 80-200 AF-S with a 1,4 TC. I've been told it's a nice combo.

It seems the camera consumes quite a lot of power if you don't turn the power switch off.

You must be kidding! According to my definition of a good wildlife picture, I'd be lucky to get 40 good ones in a lifetime.

Maybe you should consider a Sachtler tripod? Mine has not arrived yet, so I have no personal experience to offer, but let me once again recommend Bjxrn Rxrslett's excellent web site (http://www.foto.no/nikon/index.html). The site features comments on the Sachtlers and a link to the manufacturer in Germany.

It's awesome, according to Bjxrn Rxrslett - go to http://www.foto.no/nikon/index2_PC.html. (This should have appeared in blue and underlined, thanks to my limited knowledge you'll have to cut and paste...)

BTW, I highly recommend Bjxrn Rxrslett's web site. It has a lot of useful information, his Nikon lens survey in particular. He doesn't just rave anything with Nikkor written on it; he carefully studies his Velvia test shots with 40x magnifictaion and is perfectly honest about his findings.

<P>

Try: <A HREF="http://www.foto.no/nikon/index2_PC.html">http://www.foto.no/nikon/index2_PC.html</A> -- Shun Cheung

My suggestion: compensate +2/3 f-stop, bracket in three steps (+ 1/3 - right on - -1/3), shoot a test roll and see what you think. My experience tells me to use this combination when photographing great grey owls in snow (somewhat depending on how much the bird fills the frame). Nothing but your own experience can teach you how to deal with this, though. Good luck!

Shun, the quotation "it never imparts high sharpness when it is applied to landscape-type photography because there remains a tangible fuzziness within the depth of field zone" is from Bjxrn Rxrslett's review of the "old" 20-35 mm AF Nikkor. He has always been very happy with the new 17-35.

BTW, Rxrslett's sample does not flare easily, according to himself.

Oops, too little caffein... Let me correct myself: No sun would mean that the full moon doesn't set at all if the above mentioned rule was absolutely true. Still, I think the full moon sets in the darkest winter months also. And I still would like the information asked for in my previous posting, TIA!

"full moons always rise at sunset and set at sunrise"

 

Where I live (Varanger Peninsula, Norway), the sun set at November 23rd and won't rise again until January 21st. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe I saw a full moon during the dark months last year...

 

Where on Earth would the rule quoted above be valid as an approximation?

Velvia is a very saturated high-contrast film. You can use it in any sort of light, provided you want to exaggerate the contrasts you find in a scene. So if the shadows and light in the sand dunes is of any photographic interest to you, Velvia may be great. If you want details both in the highlights and the shadows, Velvia will be terrible! terrible! terrible! My suggestion: Try some rolls of Velvia and some rolls of a film with lower contrast (Astia or E100SV, depending on the desired colour saturation), and come back later on the net to tell us what worked.

You typically get the most interesting pictures when a bird makes som move - e.g. displaying, chasing another bird, running to catch a food item, or during take-off and landing... That's when you (sometimes desperately) need autofocus. I spent serious cash on upgrading from a rather good third-party AF lens to a state-of-the-art Nikkor lens with built-in silent wave motor. I've already made some money selling pictures I'd NEVER would have gotten with my old lens. I bet you won't regret upgrading either - as long as you don't have to sell your car to afford it.