hoffmanvision

<p>I have to add my two cents. My Cleon (Nikon) broke after less than a year of light use. First, the useable distance of the wireless started to get shorter and shorter, even after replacing the batteries. Second, the button presses on the wireless remote started becoming extremely unreliable even at very short range. Third, the the cheap plastic button on the wired remote pressed "in" and never came "out". An attempt to right the misalignment or whatever resulted in the button completely self destructing rendering the unit completely useless. I repeat, this was very minimally used in a normal non-abusive manner.<br>

As is usual in life, you get what you pay for. I only wish i could find a good wireless remote alternative for the pro Nikon lineup. </p>

<p>When saw the Nikon 17-35mm for sale on Craigs list, along with a D70 (not too outdated at the time), for only $800 I first thought, this must be stolen or a scam. Well I called the guy and it turned out he'd dropped it while shooting a wedding. The front threads were toast and the zoom ring was majorly stiff. He did, however say that it still shot nice sharp pictures but he wasn't willing to fork over the dough to get it fixed. I jumped, knowing I could deal with a stiff zoom for that price, and immediately drove 4 hours to Seattle to pick it up. Eventually, I took it into my local repair shop and was quoted $340 for parts and labor to get it back to new. It's been flawless ever since. Needless to say, after reselling the redundant D70 I came out with a sweeeeet deal on one of my best lenses ever. The 17-35 has been a part of many of my best photos, has earned me a bunch of money, and has been the main gun on 3 successive bodies so far, both DX and FX. If you can find a good deal on a used one, go for it. Like you said, you will be going to FX eventually so don't waste money on a DX lens. This lens will not disappoint and due to the quality it is an investment...just don't go losing it in the woods!</p>

<p>I was told by my local repair shop that this method only works for AF-S lenses when I brought them my front focusing 50 1.8D. They also told me that with non-motor-driven lenses, the problem has to be in the camera body and not the lens because the lens just does what the camera tells it. OK, so there's a problem somewhere... Why would my camera only mis-focus with this one of my 7 lenses? Anyone know where I can get an in depth explanation of this entire subject? Thanks. Richard, thanks for the link to the chart!</p>

<p>My pins are exactly like yours. Every time I've had this problem, it's always started out with me thinking there was a problem with the MB-D10 and turning out that I was accidentally depressing the vertical shutter halfway with my knee or the table or my wrist or something. That may be why locking the shutter release is working for you?? I'm not saying you'd be as silly as me, I'm just sayin'.</p>

<p>Ouch! I've burned through 3 D70 so far. Two were fried by humidity and one from a two foot fall. Great little cameras but not built to last, I'm afraid. In your case, unless it got rained on or something, that kind of weather shouldn't be enough to toast it. Don't know what to tell ya. Good luck man!</p>

<p>Here's my experience of LR2 vs LR3: Mind you, I will be comparing files produced by the Nikon D300 and D700 only. For image quality, LR3 has the clear advantage over it's predecessor. Especially at high ISO. It's not just how it handles noise reduction (which is sooo much better), everything about the files seem to look better to me. I haven't taken the time to really get down to the nut and bolts of what it is I'm seeing, lets just say that for my paying clients, I started processing all my high ISO stuff in LR3. Why just the high ISO stuff? Well, for me LR2 does a decent job when given a nice file. I haven't found the difference in low ISO file handling to be great enough to overcome LR3's greatest liability: Speed. The program limps along like someone shot out both it's knees with a 12 gauge. A project that would take me 2 hours to edit in LR2 is easily 3 to 4 hours in LR3, and it's mostly time wasted watching the spinning beachball on my Intel Macbook Pro. Just switching from one image to the next in the Development module can easily consume 5 seconds of zero productivity. If you don't have the latest and greatest hardware be careful about upgrading- you may wish you hadn't!</p>

<p>The new features and image rendering or LR 3 look highly promising. Lets just hope Adobe can get it at least as fast as LR2. Funny, I used to complain that LR2 was slower than Bridge+ACR, now it seemingly runs on steroids. Also funny how Adobe is advertising LR3 on a platform of SPEED SPEED SPEED! It's 1984 all over again.</p>

<p>Thanks. I'm using the D700 with 2.8 zooms. Sometimes I will be competing with the sun and have found the Speedlights to be not enough. Ben, I guess I'll have to try that- thanks for the tip!</p>

<p>I shot the D300 for about two years, and while it is marginally better at high ISO than my D70 (or D200), I was always disappointed overall. I found that while I could control noise to some extent, the final product was extremely soft and free of fine detail. Dynamic range and color saturation and accuracy were also highly compromised on anything above ISO 1000.</p>

<p>Last week I shot my first volleyball match with my new D700. Wow! This is night and day compared to the D300. forget needing f/1.8, I was able to shoot my 2.8 zoom with impunity. ISO 3200 looks like 400 from my D70 and 800 from my D300. You may not be able to justify the cost today but eventually you will become frustrated enough to go there. Why waste your time with the D300? Used D700's can be had for around $1900 these days if you look around.</p>

<p>I can also earnestly recommend using flash bounced into the ceiling or high on the wall for gym stuff. The perception that flash blinds athletes is false. The duration is so brief that it's not even noticed by athletes focused on the game. Every NBA shot you see in Sports Illustrated is shot with high power flash. The CyberSync radio slaves from Paul C. Buff are inexpensive and astoundingly reliable.</p>

<p>I'm getting more and more into action sports photography but am having a hard time deciding which way to go with my lighting. I have several options at my disposal already:</p>

<p>2x Nikon SB-800 with a Quantum 2x2 battery. Very fast recycle, light weight, weak.<br>

1x Quantum Qpaq-X 400ws pack. No heads yet.<br>

3x Alien Bees B800, 1x Alien Bees B1600, 1x Vagabond 2 battery pack. Powerful, heavy.</p>

<p>The Alien Bees do quite well for most of my shoots around town but they are bulky and heavy when using the Vagabond. As I start to go into the snowboarding season, I'll need something lighter and more compact for carrying in a backpack. I have this Quantum pack I scored a great deal on but I've heard the flash durations are pretty weak on their heads. Thinking of selling it. Finally, I have the SB-800's which are awesome for for being so compact, light, and fast to recycle but are weak on power.</p>

<p>Here's my question: How do I multiply watt-seconds when ganging multiple flashes together? I want to determine how many speed-lights I'll need to add to get the same kind of power I'd get from my B800 or B1600 monolights. I also want to know how many I'd need to compare to the Q-flash when powered down enough to reach the desired flash durations (about 1/4 power).</p>

<p>Any other experience or suggestions as to my path would be most welcome.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Sean</p>

<p>So far only Steven gave a brief mention of what I'm thinking: Why give up the 80-200 2.8? It's too heavy and not fast enough? I use this lens for all kinds of sports, weddings, and even portraits and find it extremely sharp and fast focussing. I'm using a D300 so my focus drive motor may be faster but I wouldn't dream of giving this up for a shorter Sigma! I find plenty of uses for the 200mm range.</p>

<p>As for the 18-70 that came with my D70- it served it's purpose for a few years but eventually got replaced by a smokin deal on a used 17-35 2.8 which is faster, sharper, more rugged, and ready to be a killer super-wide on FX. Are my lenses heavier than I could get away with? Yes. But I refuse to go back to anything slower than 2.8, I just need the speed. I also bought the Tamron 17-50 2.8 but never got it close to sharp, even after two trips to warranty. Some have had great success with this lens though.</p>

<p>I saw you mention 28-105. I have that in Nikon D and it's pretty nice. It's well built, has a macro setting, and can be had pretty cheap. Far sharper than my buddy's 24-120.</p>

<p>I looked into this scenario recently as I too have a mix of iTTL and non-iTTL flashes. I'm convinced that radio-wireless iTTL is not yet ready for the big-time. Radio Poppers are a cool concept and I'm glad someone was able to engineer it and bring it to market but I think it's a bit too much of a workaround for my taste. The new Pocket Wizards, (when they finally arrive) look like a sweet option and I think they'll have far fewer problems than the Canon equivalent, but they are pricey and not yet available.</p>

<p>That leaves us with fully manual or stock, non-radio iTTL. With my work, I've found that I need both systems at various times. One day I might be shooting an indoor event and have no time to meter light and thus prefer the ease of iTTL, while the next night I might be shooting sports and can't wait for the pre-flash communication before my shutter releases. There are also times when the iTTL simply will not work (line-of-sight, etc).</p>

<p>What I decided to do was get a set in inexpensive radio-slaves and buy only iTTL compatible flashes for the future. After much research, I adopted the CyberSyncs and have absolutely no regrets. Ebay-type triggers might appear to give a better value but I've already thrown away two sets in two years, so they proved to be a false economy. They also left me looking like a chump in front of clients way too many times when they'd refuse to fire at 10ft. or pick up a near by cell-phone and start rapid-firing like a machine gun. You could also go with classic Pocket Wizards but I have to tell you that the CyberSyncs will give you comparable performance (mine have NEVER mis-fired on thousands of shots) at a fraction of the price and they're backed by the best warranty in the industry.</p>

<p>As for the future, I'm waiting to see how the new Wizards behave with Nikon and I'm stocking up on used SB-800s. If I can get the reliability of my current setup, with the ease of TTL and remote adjustability, I'll gladly throw down the cash for a superior product. For now, I'm set. Time to save for that D700!</p>

<p>bummer. Seems like it would have been super easy to carry over the technology to use a booster TTL flash. I mean the cords and ports are all already there!</p>

<p>What is the lowest cost way to get Quantum with iTTL? Used is great! I already have the battery. How much more power will I see with a Quantum 160 ws over an SB-800, especially at greater distances where the quantum won't zoom?</p>

<p>Old thread but here's what I've found after ten night football games this season: I like the monopod most of the time. When the action comes right to me I just pick up the foot and am able to track a little faster. Otherwise, with the foot planted, panning is smoother and I do get sharper results. Another reason I like the monopod is that I can mount my flash low for better fill into the helmet. I use the dedicated TTL cord with my SB-800 clamped low on the monopod leg. TTL is the only way to go. I shoot high ISO and 2.8 glass, and can get 1/320th sync speed on my D300. This setup saturates colors, puts fill inside the helmet, and cuts down on red-eye. </p>

<p>bummer. Seems like it would have been super easy to carry over the technology to use a booster TTL flash. I mean the cords and ports are all already there!</p>

<p>What is the lowest cost way to get Quantum with iTTL? Used is great! I already have the battery. How much more power will I see with a Quantum 160 ws over an SB-800, especially at greater distances where the quantum won't zoom?</p>

<p>anyone?</p>

<p>Hey there- I love the iTTL wireless for some of my work but often find myself needing something a little faster and more reliable. For example, I've been shooting high school football at night. TTL is the only way to go here because the players are all over the field and I'm using focal lengths of 80-400 mm. With wireless TTL I can't deal with the shutter delay of all the pre-flash action so I've been using the SC-17 cord with good success. My new problem is that one SB-800 is just a little under-powered to a) recycle fast enough, and b) keep cool enough on burst sequences. I just picked up a Quantum 2x2 battery and two Nikon high voltage cords so recycle will no longer be a problem and I figure having two heads working half as hard will mean half the heat build up as well. Oh, and yes I know I can melt my flash from too many bursts (seems like every thread I've seen on the subject has 10 posts warning about this!)<br /><br />Here's what I'm thinking of doing but don't know the optimal cord setup:<br /><br />With a D300 or D700, I want to run the SC-17 to my main SB-800 and then attach a second Nikon SB via a SC-26 or SC-27 TTL cord. I know the SB-800 flashes have a port for these cords but I can't find reference to this working under the new iTTL paradigm. Looks like the SB-600 and 900 do not have the TTL port. Do either of these flashes work in wired TTL with the AS-10 shoe? Can I keep daisy chaining more units (SB-800>SB-600>SB-900) with more AS-10 shoes? Can my SB-28 work in this mix or do I need another SB-x00 model?<br /><br />Thanks for helping me out with these questions and I'm open to any other setup ideas you may have!</p>

<p>PS, this is all rigged up to my monopod below the camera for fill light into the face mask. It's a little clumsy, with a gorilla-pod/ball-head/cold-shoe holding my flash. Any thoughts on a better rig- Super clamp maybe?</p>

<p>Hey guys thanks for the replies. We have tested the D200 against the D300 in a controlled environment and came to the same conclusion- something is off. John likes the color from the D200 hands down, no matter what we've done with white-balance. Like I said this is a high-volume studio so most files never see Photoshop at all. We prefer to get everything right in the JPG and then it all goes down the same Timestone software pipeline for printing. As to the questions regarding whether we have other equipment or workflow that changed: the computers and workflow are unchanged. We still use the S3, S5, D200, D1x (B&W only), D2x, and D300 on a regular basis so it's easy to compare results in real time.</p>

<p>With my own work, I always shoot RAW and set the color to my liking in post, but in the high-volume studio, RAW is not an option at this time. I suspect that Pete S is honing in on the real problem for us- that Nikon is pushing the saturation of certain channels to get "better looking" color rather than accurate color. I'm starting to think the way to combat this in camera is to build a custom Picture Control curve in Capture NX to tame the reds & yellows somehow.</p>

<p>Anyone done this?</p>

<p>OK, I work for a fairly high volume portrait studio that does all our own processing and printing onto Fuji Crystal Archive. Starting with the D1x, we've gone through the Nikon/Fuji product cycle, including the D70, S3, D200, S5, D2x, and now the D300. John the lab guy has always been very happy with skin tones from JPGs produced in camera until the D2x and now the D300. He describes them as orange and "mannequin"looking. Before you all make a reply instructing me to make a proper custom white balance and use the correct Picture Control, let me just say that we've tried all that we can think of, setting neutral white balance with an Expodisk, trying to offset the orange with various sheets of white paper, and we've loaded and tried all the available Picture Controls including the D2X modes and the new Portrait mode. Still, nothing we do with the D300 or D2x looks remotely realistic when compared to the D200 or S5.<br>

<br /> Has anyone else faced this and what have you determined? John seems to think Nikon is using some sort of new filter over the sensor that's causing the problem. I'm not convinced, believing the problem to be in the processing algorithms. I was the first in the studio to shoot with the D300 and was sure that along with all the other improvements to IQ colors were at least as accurate as before if not better. Then we did some testing and the side by side comparisons revealed a real difference in skin tones! I still love shooting with the D300 best but this is killing our lab guy! We are now having to run Photoshop actions with Nik Color FX Pro on all images shot with these two bodies.<br>

<br /> Are custom Picture Control profiles the answer and why hasn't Nikon gotten them right in the first place? Where can I get good ones or tutorials on how to make my own? Does anyone know if this is limited to the 12mp DX sensors or is this problem continued on with the D3/D700 bodies as well? Thanks!<br>

<br /> PS- Dear Fuji: where's our S7 Pro??!?</p>

<p>Anyone have a good source for these hub-printable disks? I'll be buying in bulk. I'm hoping to find ones that are somewhat rater resistant. Are the Epson pigment based inks best for this? Do I need to apply an adhesive spray to keep the inks from smearing if gotten wet?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Hey Elane. The simple answer is to increase your ISO and to use a faster aperture like f/2.8. I'm shooting with a Nikon D300 and last week my settings were ISO 3200, 1/320 sec., f/2.8. I don't think the images look all that good at this ISO on my camera and I wouldn't suggest you go to 3200 with a D60 (1600 max).</p>

<p>I too have used flash for friday night football but find that I often get terrible red-eye if I don't get the flash away from the camera. The longer the focal length, the further the flash must get from the lens. A good flash bracket (Stroboframe, Custom Brackets, etc.) and flash extension cable (Nikon SC-28 or SC-29) will help.</p>

<p>To sum it up, you'll probably need a faster lens, a better noise controlling camera, or a bracket + cable for your flash, or all three! I have to say, my trusty 80-200 f/2.8 is probably my most valuable tool for situations like this. Look around and you'll find a good deal on a used one.<br>

<br />Good luck!</p><div></div>

<p>Hello! I shot a wedding this summer here in the states where a number of the family members were from Scotland (Edinburgh). I recently received a print order for an 8x12" canvas stretch. I think I'm best off having it printed by a lab in the UK to save on shipping time and cost.<br>

Anyone have a suggestion? I'd prefer middle-of-the-road cost without sacrificing quality!<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Hello. As a new studio photographer I'm trying everything out. I have found great success shooting white seamless backgrounds based on a tutorial by Zach Arias (http://www.zarias.com/?p=71). He uses white tileboard from Home Depot for an inexpensive, easy to clean floor to pickup a reflection of the subject. Now I'm trying to master the black seamless but I can't find any clues as to a cheap, durable, reflective floor for a similar look. I know Plexiglass would work but it's really expensive.<br>

Anyone doing something like this?</p>

<p>Hi there, I'm building my first real studio setup and need advice on what modifiers are must-have and which I'll never use. Thus far I've been an avid Strobist, using a couple umbrellas, some foamcore reflectors, and a Morris mini-softbox with my collection of speedlights but lately I've been doing more and more portraits and location work that have me hitting the wall on overpowering the sun with what I've got (three strobes at full power into an umbrella to reach f/9 is getting a bit old!). I also now have a sweet three-car garage for a studio space so the time is right.<br>

My budget is about $3000 and I've decided on Alien Bees/ White Lightning as the most cost effective way to go. Here's what I'm thinking so far:<br>

2x AB B800<br>

1x WL X1600<br>

1x AB Ring flash w/ moon unit<br>

1x AB Large folding softbox w/grid (32"x40")<br>

1x AB Giant folding softbox w/grid (30"x60")<br>

1x AB Large folding octobox w/grid (47")<br>

1x AB 22" beauty dish w/40 degree grid<br>

1x AB Set of four honeycomb grids (10-40 degree)<br>

1x AB barn doors<br>

Full set of CyberSync triggers<br>

1x Vagabond II battery pack<br>

1x Manfrotto or Avenger Boom arm<br>

1x White and 1x Black 9' seamless paper</p>

<p>I already have a bunch of stands from Impact, including a couple heavy duty 13'ers, and a Bogen background cross bar.<br>

I would like advice on any glaring omissions or feedback on my choice of lights and modifiers. Are my softbox/octobox picks reasonable or what? Do I need a strip box (10"x36") or a medium softbox (24"x36") instead of one of those I selected? I'll be doing all kinds of portraits from head shots on up to bands and formal wedding groups so I need to be flexible.</p>

<p>You know what I like about Paul C Buff? I can get all this stuff for the price of one pack & head from some of the other guys!<br>

Thank you & Cheers!</p>

<p>Thanks for the input guys! Really helpful tibits here. I think I'll be looking to stay pretty inexpensive on this first one and wait till some of the HD cams get a bit more affordable...or just throw down on a RED and call it good!</p>

<p>Hey there all,<br /> I've been an SLR camera shooter for many years and I now teach Digital Photography and Photoshop courses at the local Community College. I've always wanted to get into video but just never have. Recently I was asked to teach a YouTube class and I though this would be the perfect time to finally pick up a digital video camera.<br>

<br /> As an SLR user, there are certain features, such as full manual controls, I feel I could never live without on a point & shoot. My question is this: What are the have-to-have features to look for on in video? I've heard that the 3ccd sensors are superior to single ccds. I know that some models (high end) offer interchangeable lenses. I'd like to have manual control over the exposure. What features define the difference between a point & shoot video camera and real video camera?<br /> <br /> Finally, what are some recommendations on a baseline model, used and inexpensive preferrably, to get me going in video. I'll make the comparison to my Nikon D70 or a Canon 20D. Both are still excellent and very capable cameras with full manual control and many pro level features but can be had these days for less than $300.<br /> <br /> Thanks</p>