User_2000406

<p>I've heard that the main circuit board tends to fail. At this late date that failure would be irreparable due to lack of spare parts.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You didn't read my whole post. The point I was making was that geese and pigeons are doing just fine, multiplying to the nuisance level, even though they're eating bread. Maybe the bread is why they're doing so great. None of them seem to be falling ill because of it. Maybe the argument bread isn't good is just wrong or maybe birds get use to it and thrive on the added nourishment.</p> </blockquote> <p>There are many positive and negative factors affecting how any species of wildlife is doing. For urban birds, it's not just people feeding them snacks, it's also industrial pollution, reduced predation, better or worse nesting sites, extra food sources like park lawns (goose food!), or whatever other factors are present. Any individual bird or individual species may have a smaller or larger exposure to any of these factors. A passerby just doesn't know what factors any one bird, flock of birds, or species of bird may have been exposed to and to what degree, and is in no position to state that an apparent absence of problems upon superficial examination means the birds are just fine.</p> <p>Bread or other snacks fed to birds may or may not be a significant part of the diet of any one bird you see. If some small percentage of urban ducks end up in poor health due to heavy reliance on bread you may not notice those birds among all the others that didn't get this consistently heavy bread diet.</p> <p>By analogy, consider a human population with poor diet and major exposure to industrial toxins but no method of birth control. Such a population could grow rapidly and have many young individuals who look healthy, yet have very serious population-level health problems and a lot of early mortality. Appearances can be deceiving, especially superficial appearances.</p> <p>I'm not worried about the overall population levels of urban geese, pigeons, and so on - they are certainly abundant enough in these areas. These are common and unspecialized species that adapt to a variety of environments. That still leaves me not wanting to harm individual birds, and to not train birds to approach and harass other people in the expectation of being fed.</p> <p>Outside the city in the wilds, not feeding wildlife is IMO more important. Training animals in the wild to approach people is a recipe for trouble, both for animals and for people and for a variety of reasons I won't go into here. There are very good reasons why national parks in the U.S., for instance, forbid all feeding of wild animals.</p>

<p>Thanks for your answers, David and Laura!</p>

<p>Excellent answer, Laura!</p> <p>This is a somewhat different issue, but relates in a way. I was setting up to photograph some elk (in the North American sense) that were over 200 meters away. From past experience I knew that this elk herd was easily spooked.</p> <p>I was being quiet and moving slowly to avoid spooking the animals, and now I had the 500mm lens and camera on the tripod and was about to start shooting . Of course a car pulled up and several people piled out, slamming their doors as they got out to see whatever I was photographing (which must have been interesting if I was using such a long lens).</p> <p>The elk were <em>gone</em> and the people seemed to have no idea of what they had just done. I packed up and left as those elk were not going to be back for hours.</p> <p>What would you have done? Is there any way to reasonably prevent such an occurrence or is this just unavoidable bad luck? Of course a wildlife photographer should know better, but most folks have no idea. The elk habitat in question is all private land so shooting from a public road is the only option.</p>

<p>"The southern most point in Ontario is actually on the same parallel as Northern California, and it's no longer summer there, either."</p> <p>Not many people in the U.S. know that the southernmost point in Canada is actually south of the north edge of California. Ironically, I just flew by Point Pelee a few weeks ago while headed east!</p> <p>As for the weather, the coastal areas you've been traveling through tend to have fog and wind all summer long, while just 30-40 km inland it's warm and sunny, sometimes 15-20 C. warmer. There's a huge and relatively stable difference between the coast and the interior all summer long that's nothing like what you'll see on the eastern side of North America. Granted, the past few days have also had the first fall storm in northern California after a normal summer of virtually no rain and the interior has now cooled off. Still, these coastal areas don't get the dramatic seasonal temperature changes you get in eastern and central Canada.</p> <p>Gup, if you want to head east now, remember that it's a slow drive through the Clear Lake area due to windy roads but it's pleasant and you avoid the traffic and rush of an urban area. If you do decide to try U.S. 395, it's best from the Bridgeport area south to Lone Pine.</p> <p> </p>

<p>After all that you can head to Las Vegas along U.S. 395 on the east side of the Sierra Nevada. Fall colors are now peaking, the tops of the mountains are dusted with snow, and the lower sun angle this time of the year is favorable. I'd be there myself in a few days if I weren't laid up with a health problem. Alternate routes are nowhere near as interesting.</p> <p>Be sure to check out Lundy Canyon and Upper Rock Creek road while you're in the area.</p>

<p>It's a shame. The guys in the used department are very knowledgeable and helpful, and the prices compare favorably to those at KEH. The owner's collection (not the Leica one, but the main one) is pretty amazing with loads of antiques. I'll be going by one last time.</p>

<p>Near-infrared photographs from the middle of the day often look surprisingly good - much less 'flat' than visible-spectrum photos taken at the same time. All I can suggest is experimentation to get a feel for how this medium works.</p>

<p>I've had good luck with several refurbished cameras. The most recent one I got turned out to have a bad battery that wouldn't charge. That problem had not been caught by the service center- they presumably pop in a battery that's already fully charged to check the camera. With a good replacement battery (which I had fortunately had on hand, enabling troubleshooting) the camera works perfectly.</p>

<p>I've had good results from Life Pixel (lifepixel.com) and they offer a variety of filter choices. Their website shows what to expect from each choice. Which filter to choose will depend entirely on what you want to get out of the camera- standard false-color IR, false color with blue sky right out of the camera, B&W, etc.</p>

<p>I'd like to reiterate what others have said about heat. From northern California south to San Diego, the immediate coastline will usuallly have reasonable temperatures in summer, though the frequent fog can be chilly in the more northerly areas. As one goes inland average temperatures rise, to the point where they will be 90 F. or higher once you are some distance from the coast (20-30 miles, depending on inland penetration of coastal air). Still farther inland it'll tend to be in the 100s, and Death Valley in the 110s. My own preference in summer is to stay near the coast or get pretty high up into the mountains, say 6000-7000 feet or more, to avoid the heat.</p> <p>One idea would be to do the coastal trip Phil has suggested, then take U.S. 395 (or State Route 14 to 395) north to the east side of the Sierra Nevada. The latter leg can be a quick shot north to the Bishop or Mammoth Lakes areas, after which you can slow down and take side trips into the mountains. I particularly recommend State Route 168 west from Bishop, or Upper Rock Creek Road a bit to the north. It'll be crowded (lots of LA folks doing the same thing) but really beautiful, and once you get into the mountains a lot cooler than Yosemite Valley due to higher elevations.</p> <p>From that area you can take State Route 120 west into Yosemite National Park. You could even bypass the overcrowded Yosemite Valley and just enjoy wonderful and cool places like Tuolumne Meadows and Tenaya Lake (your kids will enjoy the beaches at the latter). Or instead, you could continue north on U.S. 395 and State Route 89 through beautiful mountain country, much of it uncrowded, north to Lake Tahoe, Sierra Valley, and Lassen Volcanic National Park. The last of these is a really family-friendly place which I certainly enjoyed as a 6- or 7-year old. Don't miss the geothermal features at Bumpass Hell which is an easy hike, and which a certain young child found absolutely fascinating over 50 years ago.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You need to start with an FX lens to have a large enough image circle to cover an M4/3 sensor.</p> </blockquote> <p>Maybe, maybe not: http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPNFG-M43-BM3:</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>The Speed Booster ULTRA m43 will also work extremely well with many DX and APS-C format lenses provided the image circle of the lens is large enough.</p> </blockquote> <p>Also,</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>If you really want to use that lens, which is a nice lens if you really like the 18-35mm range and don't mind the size, instead of buying a Speedbooster, spend the same money on a D5000 series camera and you will have a much better experience.</p> </blockquote> <p>The OP has a Panasonic GH4 for its video abilities, so he's not looking for a Nikon DSLR.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Mea culpa- I predicted years ago that this camera would be called the D9000 to go along with the other DX cameras. I was wrong. So it looks like now we'll have the D500, D600+, D700+, and D800+ series, all full frame except for the first, and only some at a professional build level. Just like Canon with its 5D, 6D, and 7D iterations.</p> <p>As others have noted, where are the pro-level DX lenses?</p>

<p>Shun, I was responding to the OP's situation only; I should have been clear about this. Based on his posts he appears to be focused on video.</p> <p>However, micro 4/3 offers flexibility, in that it's very portable but with the option of occasionally using heavier lenses and a tripod. For instance, almost all of my shooting in this format has been handheld with lenses of reasonable weight. Nevertheless, I've also used a tripod on a couple of occasions with heavier lenses (full 4/3 or Nikkor) adapted to the camera via an adapter with a tripod mount. That kind of supplemental equipment can stay in the trunk on an auto trip, where it's available for special situations but is not otherwise an encumbrance when one is out and about on foot.</p> <p>I think we can agree that for handheld use, a heavy adapted lens on a light camera will tend to be ergonomically awkward.</p>

<blockquote> <p>In particular, the Sigma 18-35mm/f1.8 lens is heavy for a short zoom. Adding an adapter will make it a very front-heavy set up on your GH4.</p> </blockquote> <p>Shun, the Metabones Speed Booster has a built-in tripod mount so this should not be an issue. On the other hand, for almost every other adapter out there this is something to really keep in mind, especially when adapting heavy lenses from larger formats to smaller cameras with flimsier construction.</p>

<p>Also look for demos at Adorama.com. The ones I've purchased have been practically like new at a much lower price. Check the warranty, though, to understand the tradeoffs.</p>

<p>BTW that's VRII as in "2". It's the second iteration of Nikon's image stabilization system.</p>

<p>Ilkka, it takes time for these whiskers to develop. No, I don't have any photos of Nikkor lenses with this problem but it's inherent in lead-free solder. Proper coatings are one solution and are discussed in the link I previously provided. </p> <p>What we don't know is to what extent manufacturers of consumer goods are taking preventive measures, nor can we rely upon manufacturer-affiliated repair shops to accurately report on this sort of problem when it crops up. On the other hand, after over 9 years there is certainly no epidemic of lens electronics failures to point to, which suggests the problem may be fairly limited in scope in that arena. </p> <p>All the sources I've seen (including the one I linked) state that the reason for lead-free solder is to keep lead out of landfills out of concern for possible groundwater contamination. Some of these sources also claim that concern is misplaced due to lead's relative insolubility, but such explanations that I've seen are relatively qualitative and don't actually work out likely consequent microdoses for a substance that poisons in subtle but harmful ways even in very small amounts.</p> <p>I apologize for my original post which was simplistic and inaccurate. I actually had done some online research on this issue years ago, but by the time I wrote that post I was operating mainly off memory and without adequate updated research.</p>