jim_bridges2

I use a Bogen 3047 head and it has a level mounted in the head. I have installed "E" type screens in my F4s & 8008s, so when I'm not using the 3047 head I can still keep stuff fairly level.

I've been using the LowePro Orion AW for about a year. I use it for short hikes usually four or five hours at a time. It has room for a F4s, 24, 35, 50, 105, and 75-300. Throw in a couple of extra rolls of film, filters & diopters, extra batteries, cable release, mini-tape recorder, sweat rag, lens cleaning stuff, and teleconverter. It's about as small a bag as I'd use. I use the waist belt and shoulder strap together for added support. I highly recommend this bag for short day trips.

Nikon is coming out with a new AF 70-300/4-5.6 at the end of March that is going to be lighter, and have ED glass. In fact it's so small that they didn't put a tripod mount on it, and that will probably keep me from ever buying one.

 

<p>

 

It would be hard for me to get rid of the AF 75-300/4.5-5.6 I've been using for the last six years, ED Glass or not. I've learned what I can and can't do with this lens, and I get the results I want from it. I use it for landscapes, macro (with and without the 6T diopter), and the wildlife in my area. I've never used it without being mounted on the tripod, and use a cable release. When I get lazy, and just want to tote two lenses I use the AF 24/2.8 for wide stuff, and the 75-300 for the rest of the photo's. I think it is one of the most "fun" lenses ever made by Nikon, and isn't that what it's all about..... having fun with your gear. It's just like any equipment you use, when used with the proper technique you will get great results.

Shaw says "not to duplicate his equipment" in all of his books and tapes that I have by him. His books and tapes are just guidelines for photography (more like workshops for me when I got back into photography again). I don't believe he has ever said you must use a certain film, camera, or lens. He uses both Nikon and Canon equipment, and Horseman 985 large format camera. In fact he says just the opposite... Find what works best for you, and use it.

 

<p>

 

When this book was first published in 1984 I'm sure most pro's were using K64 & K25... it was the best on the market at the time. You can bet they (the pro's) will use the film that is going to give them the best results they can get for the subjects they are shooting at that time. He states that he always test new films that are on the market in one of his tapes, and what he is using today may not be what he is going to be using tomorrow, if it's a better film.

When I first started using a autofocus system, most of the subjects were in the "bullseye", but after using the system for a while it became natural to focus, and recompose to get the subject out of the center of the frame. I must admit that I don't use the AF system for focusing very much, but use the "electronic rangefinder" in both of my AF cameras. I don't have very good eyes (-15 in one eye and -14 in the other), and the electronic rangerfinder in modern AF cameras is a godsend for me, especially after four or five hours of shooting, and things start to get that fuzziness about them, and nothing looks in focus. It may take me a little longer to set up a shot, but I can be sure that it will be in focus using the rangefinder of my AF camera.

Ilkka, I didn't get my information from a Nikon brochure, but from the Nikon System Handbook. I assumed that Jan knew that the lens would be optically fine, and just wanted to know what the "AF-S" stood for, at least that's how I read the question.I did paraphrase the book, and I'm sorry that it wasn't proper to do so.

 

<p>

 

As per the handbook.. "These lenses feature the same high-quality components of previous AF Nikkors, Extra-Low Dispersion glass, Nikon Integrated Coating, and Internal Focusing technology, however what makes these lenses different is their "Silent Wave Motors," which make them the fastest and quietest AF Nikkors available. The AF-S lenses are also designed with AF lock buttons and focus range limiters.

The AF-S lenses are the Nikon "Silent Wave Motors" lenses. They are the fastest and quietest AF Nikkors available. The glass, internal focusing, coatings are the same as on the other AF lenses.

Well... the "State" Park where I regularly shoot is closed for the annual deer slaughter! These deer are almost pets 50 weeks out of the year, but the frist two weeks in December the park allows hunters to come into the park area and blast them (buck's, doe's and yearling's) to smithereens! It's really a very controlled operation, with wire stands, and the hunter's can't MOVE from these stands. They don't want these guy's walking around slaughterin' each other! I guess with no "real" predator's to keep the deer thinned out, this is the best way to control overpopulation, but I still get bowed-up about it! It just seems a shame it has to be done this way.

The autofocus tracking system on my cameras (F4s & 8008s) focus much faster and more accurate than I can ever do manually on a moving subject. I've tried manual focusing, and I'm not very good at it, unless the critter stops, which don't count. I'm sure more practice would help. I use the Continuous Servo focus tracking system, and even on these older Nikon models, I'm satisfied with the results. I've never used the Single Servo system on either camera except to see if they work, if I've got that kind of time with a subject, I'll manual focus, and get the subject out of the center of the viewfinder for a sometimes better composition.

I'm fifty-one, and my eyesight is about as bad as it gets without having to use a white cane to get around. I'm nearsighted -15, and farsighted + 2.75 (I'd hate to be the optical technician that has to grind these lenses). Hell, I can't see faraway, or close-up without my glasses, unless I want to get four inches from the subject, then I can see real good. I dedend on the rangefinder in my cameras (8008s & F4) most of the time, espscially after a long day of shooting, and I guess they are pretty accurate, because the images are always sharp.

 

<p>

 

You can also get a custom eyepiece made for your camera. I've heard of some folks doing this. They take their eye prescription and an eyepiece to a optical company and have it installed.

 

<p>

 

I've never used any of the reading glasses that are sold in the store displays. My wife uses them, and she seems to be happy with them. But I would suggest that you get your eyes tested, and get some glasses from a good optical company.

 

<p>

 

I carry a all wearther mini-flashlight in the camera bag all the time, it's about five inches long, and uses two AA batteries. It's great for checking the camera controls.

Light is always changing. Shooting in the manual mode I take a general reading (spot meter) when I have enough light to shoot and work from that reading, and check the exposure about every ten minutes or so. The aperture priority mode is the most convenient, if you have this mode on your camera. The greens in the forest are close to medium tone in my area, that's my starting point. You can compensate if you think the scene should be lighter or darker. The waiting is the hardest part for me, but being in the forest makes it a little easier to cope with.

Nikkor 200/4 is reported to be a great macro lens. I have found that the less gear you have to mess with in macro photography... the better. I use the 105, and the TC-201 for more working distance, and if I really want some working distance, I'll use my 75-300 with the TC-201. It all depends on the subject and how I want to photograph it.

 

<p>

 

Sorry, I haven't used the 70-180, but Moose Peterson might have some information on it at his web site, I think he's been using one for testing. I think he gets to test everything Nikon makes, the lucky dog! Ah.... the tribulations of being a Pro.

John Shaw's books do overlap, but in a good way! They keep reminding you of the basic photographic technique! ALL of them are outstanding! My favorites are Closeups in Nature, and Landscapes.

The weather has to be real bad for me to stay home. If it's just mist or light rain that that turns off and on, I'll be out in it. If we get one of those Lows that makes a hard rain, and wind I'll hang it up for the day. Here in southeast Texas, spring, summer, and fall we have some very good cloud formations that blow in off the Gulf of Mexico. Some are in the mornings, and some build up in the late afternoon. These storms usually don't last very long and can be very beautiful in the morning, or late afternoon light. In fact I shot some this morning.

I take most of my photo's in the mornings in a swampy/river bottom area. It's not really inclement weather, but inclement conditions. I'll get up at 4:00 AM so I can arrive while it's still dark, and hike to a area I want to shoot. The humidity is so high you can actually see the air. The morning sun rays shinning through the forest makes some dramatic images for about two hours, and it's like this almost every weekend in the summer months.

I have some nice photo's that would not be in the files if I hadn't either gotten up very early, or stayed late, or been out in the rotten weather conditions. My loving spouse thinks I'm a little touched in the head for going out that time of the day, or in bad weather conditions, until she sees the slides. I think she's beginning to understand the nature of the beast after six years. If it was easy, evrybody would be doing it.

I'm a Velvia shooter and love overcast, fog, mist conditions! When it's overcast my little heart just thumps with joy, unless it's just pouring rain, or the wind is blowing very hard. When the sun shines I'll do some sunrise photo's, and then it's off to the shade of the big trees to do macro work for few hours. I don't even think about doing scenics after about two hours of light. But if it's overcast, I pack a lunch and stay all day, or until my roll of Velvia is all gone.

 

<p>

 

I have a rain cover for the camera and lens, and a rainsuit and umbrella for me. I can't wait for the winter clouds come down to Southeast Texas, it's my favorite time of the year, except for the spring time. Besides I usually have the place to myself, other folks think the weather is too bad to be out in. ;)

All the reports I've seen about the AF 24-120 are that it is a mighty fine lens. A bit on the slow side, but so is my AF 75-300, if you are using it from a tripod you should have no problems as far as speed. I don't think anyone will tell you not to get this lens because of it's poor quality. If "I" was just starting out I'd probably get this lens, because of all the focal lengths you get with one lens. It would be hard to turn it down.

 

<p>

 

The AF 24/2.8, and AF 105/2.8 Micro are my two landscape/scenic lenses. I use these two lenses more than a AF 35/2.0, AF 50/1.8, or AF 75-300. The 105 and 75-300 are excellent for macro work, but a sturdy tripod is "required", not an option for natural light shooting. In the areas I shoot the AF 75-300 is good for wildlife (Whitetail Deer and wading birds), but if they weren't so use to people being around all the time I'd probably have to use a 400+TC, or 500/4 to get any good shots, but the 75-300 works fine for me.

 

<p>

 

In the field the AF 105/2.8 is fairly easy to work with, but I sometimes need to use a TC-201 for more working distance. And if I need around five feet I'll use the AF 75-300 (for the shy critter's). It all depends on the subjects. I played with a AF 60/2.8 in the store before I bought a 105. The working distance of the 60 was just too close for me (four inches does make a difference in the field), but some folks swear by the 60, I guess it's up to the photographer and how he/she works. Good luck in your purchase, and I hope you enjoy this fine hobby as much as I do.

Rob Sheppard became Editor of Outdoor Photographer in December of 1995. He was an Associate Editor for Photographic before coming over to OP as a Associate Editor. To qoute Steve Werner about Rob... "His past ad agency and public relations experience has taught him how to recognize and address audience needs and interests." Well at least Steve got the ad agency part right!

 

<p>

 

I emailed Rob about all the ads I was seeing in OP, and ask him if OP was going to become like the other photo magazines on the newstands.. filled with more ads than good articles, and photographes. His reply was "to get better articles you need more ads". I didn't care much for this reply, so I no longer subscribe to OP!

 

<p>

 

OP has a web site http://www.outphotographer.com and you should let them know how you feel about the direction the magazine is headed. I did, but it didn't seem to do much good. I guess my $22.00 bucks a year wasn't very important to them.

Any of the books by John Shaw. I think he has all the areas of nature photography covered, (landscapes to closeups) and very well too. They are outstanding books for the new photographer to read. He is one of nature photography finest teacher's.

I try to plan a trip at least six months, even a year ahead of time, so I'll have time to do some research on the area. I'll ask about the area in the newsgroups "nature photo techinque". I've also got some good information here at photo net about certain areas that I plan on visiting.

 

<p>

 

I use a Delorme Atlas & Gazetteer of the State I'm visiting as a map of the area, and I just checked, they have one for Vermont. They are available at book stores. These maps show "back roads", and that's where I have found excellent photo opportunities, and some relief from the crowds at peak times.

 

<p>

 

I have never been to Vermont, so I can't help you with locations, but maybe someone else in this forum can. There are some very friendly and knowledgeable folks at this forum. Good luck.

I don't know much about photo workshops or how they are run, but I would assume that the folks that attend them are looking for a photographer with experience to guide them around a area and help them solve their photographic problems. The workshops I have seen advertised have different experience levels for photographers from novice thru advanced? I wouldn't expect a novice with a "new do all camera" to get real good results, and to be slow operating their equipment. They are there to get some experience. But I would expect an advanced photographer with one of these "electronic marvelflexes" to get great results, because he/she "knows" how his equipment is going to operate before they get in the field with a workshop group.

 

<p>

 

I don't think that the new cameras are that difficult to use, but there "is" a learning curve from old to new, but it's not all that bad (the Nikon F5 made "Moose Peterson" a autofocus fan)! The metering systems are wonderful, even in AF cameras of seven or eight years ago. And for ol' tired eyes autofocus is a godsend, I don't care where the sensors are, I'll recompose!

 

<p>

 

As far as macro work, I do not use autofocus, or autoexposure. Infact it might work, I must admit I haven't tried it, I do this kind of photography in the manual mode. Old habits are hard to break!

 

<p>

 

I do think that my photography is better as far as the new camera systems. The manufactures are making it very easy for us to take great photographs, if we "learn" how to put these new camera systems to use. I read somewhere "It's not the camera/lens that makes the great photographs, it's the gray mass three inches behind the viewfinder". I think this quote still holds true even in todays "do all cameras".

I use a game bird hunting jacket that I've had for twenty years. It's the weight of a heavy long sleeve shirt with two large side pockets. The large pouch in the back that used to hold some unlucky birds..... now carries rain poncho, rain cover for the camera, Tote umbrella, and snacks. I don't recall the cost of it, but I'm sure it wasn't as much as a photographers vest that I've seen, and is light weight enough to wear all year.

I've been using the Bogen 3021 tripod for five years. This is a real good sturdy tripod. I've had it setup in mud, snow, sand, and creeks, and it hasn't failed me yet (Does this sound like a Chevy truck commercial?). I purchased the Bogen 3047 tilt pan head about 4 months ago, and really like it's smooth operation. For landscape, and macro photography this combination is hard to beat for the bucks.

 

<p>

 

You may already know, but if you plan to do any hiking with it resting over your shoulder be sure to put some padding on the upper legs. I use 3/8" foam pipe insulation that I bought from the hardware store. Good luck.

The Nikkor AF105/2.8 D Micro has more working distance than the AF60/2.8 Micro,(60mm = 8 3/4 inches, 105mm = 12 inches.. and these distances are from the back of the cameras film plane, not the front of the lens) and if you are going to use it in the field for macro photography you will want those extra inches the 105 affords you. I also use the TC201 for even more working distance when it's required and still get very good results with this setup.

 

<p>

 

Get the lens hood when you get the lens, and I use a polarizer filter when using it on some landscape photography. By the way, it is great for landscape photography.

 

<p>

 

The best book on macro photography is John Shaw's "Closeups in Nature". It cost $25.00, but for the information about macro photography that's in it, it's a bargain! It should be required reading for anyone that wants to get into macro photography. It will answer any question you have about the subject.

 

<p>

 

Good luck.

Luggin' around a big ol' tripod, camera body, and lenses, is a pain! But when I get my film back from the lab, and there are some really nice shots that I've taken that day, I forget all about the pain in my back!

 

<p>

 

I carry the minimum amount of equipment for the kind of outdoor photography I do. I use the 35-70 and the 75-300 zoom lenses, and 105 macro lens plus a x2, that's it. I got the zooms mainly because of the weight factor, and convenience. Carrying around five or six prime lenses to get the same focal lengths of two zooms just don't make sense to this fifty + year old body. If I was twenty-five years younger, I'd probably be carrying all them primes, plus a 500/4 for the exercise! For macro photography the 105 works great for me, and I have a x2, if I need more working distance from a subject.

 

<p>

 

Like the saying goes... If it was easy, anybody could do it.

 

<p>

 

Keep the 100 macro for your closeup work, and the 24-85 sounds great for scenic landscapes. Good luck.

 

<p>

 

Jim.

We were at Mt. St. Helens July '96. We entered from the Randle Wa. (north) side of the park, and got to drive all the way to Windy Ridge Viewpoint by Spirit Lake. I think from that viewpoint you are 4 or 5 miles from St. Helens. This was the area that took the blast, and it is awesome!! The trees that weren't blown down, or away, were burnt up. There are still logs floating in Spirit Lake! It is really unbelievable! At the time we were there, you could only shoot from the park road pull-overs, and viewpoints. There were no trails open to the public in this area, but they may have some open now, I'm not sure. There were 5 or more pull-overs from Bear Meadow Viewpoint to Windy Ridge. There were wild flowers all along the road, but the wind, sun, and limited time I had kept me from doing all the shooting that I wanted to do.

I felt more like a photojournalist in a disaster area than an outdoor landscape photographer. I guess it looked like it should after an explosion of that size. We didn't get to go to the other areas around St. Helens, so I don't know about them. But if you want to see the destructive side of nature, and what it can do to a Old Growth Forest, go on the north side of Mt. St. Helens. Being from Southeast Texas, it was worth it for us.