dbcooper

When I use a protective filter, I use Hoya HD. They stay the cleanest of any filters I've used (Hoya Pro 1 being the worst dirt-attractant IMO), it has really good anti-reflective coatings, and thin but very strong glass. If you're shooting digital, don't wouldn't worry about UV unless you have a special application in mind or fluorescence is a problem with a lens element or two. The digital sensor cover filter inside the camera takes out all the UV that most filters will, making UV filters redundant. If getting a clearer picture (cutting haze) is more important than the protection, you'll get good results with a polarizing filter (assuming the shot can stand the filter factor).

In addition to a strong ND, for sunrises and sunsets you might consider using a reverse grad instead of a regular grad to balance the exposure, especially if shooting flattish landscapes or seascapes. An alternate improvement would be to use a regular grad with an ND strip/stripe filter.

 

Here's some information on reverse grads. http://www.singh-ray.com/reversegrads.html

Besides Singh Ray, Formatt/Hitech also make them. Singh Ray also makes an ND strip in different densities.

 

I know it sounds bit gimmicky, but I like my sunset and twiight grads. I also use an FL-D to pop sunsets.

I use screw filters, Lee filter system, and Cokin, depending on if I'm using graduated NDs and what lens I'll be using. Yes, Big Stoppers are hard to find, and they're glass, so they're fragile and relatively heavy. I love mine. A couple of years ago I just bit the bullet, ordered a Big Stopper, and waited until it came. If you want one, order it now. Delaying ordering will only increase your wait time.

 

 

 

For screw filters, I use 77mm B+W 10-stop (Nikon here). It has a strong warm cast, yes, but that's easily changed in post. It was originally intended to be an industrial filter, and B+W plainly states there is a color cast in their catalog. It comes right out in post, but sometimes I like the warm case. It doesn't look magenta to me. Some cameras will give a magenta cast with any strong ND filter due to IR passing because of long exposure times. It can be easily adjusted out in post. If you shoot RAW, it's no big deal to correct.

 

 

 

When I use a threaded dark ND, I'm shooting from a tripod due to exposure times. I focus and meter before I put the filter on. Usually, the camera's AF won't work because the light is too dim with the filter mounted. I focus manually (switching off the camera's AF) and compensate the exposure for the filter, then mount it on the lens. Sometimes I stack it with a 3-stop ND if there's no issue with vignetting, depending on the lens I'm using.

 

 

 

Sometimes I use a screw-on polarizer as well. I put it on last, over the dark ND. Firsst look through it holding it up to my eye, rotate for the polarizing effect I want, note where a mark on the filter ring is as if it were a clock (if there's no mark or letter, you can make a mark with paint or nail polish). I screw the polarizer over the strong ND that's mounted on the lens, then adjust the filter ring to the same position I noted when i looked through it (I like to think of this in terms of o'clock, like 10 o'clock).

 

 

 

Lastly, when usig really dark ND's, I start with a compensated exposure, chimp, and adjust exposure. I find I bracket exposures a lot because it's easier than missing an exposure and going back to reshoot. These folks have Lee Big Stoppers for $169. It's where I got mine http://www.2filters.com/ Good luck!

Here's some ideas:

Silver - increasing contrast/'punching up' shots on cloudy days/flat lighting

Diffuser - use as a a large flash diffuser, or softening/slightly dimming streaming window light from a small window (can soften sunlight if used close to the subject).

Black - killing reflected light (sometimes I don't want fill from a given direction)

'Sunset' - warming up/enhancing portraits/still lifes. I like to use this to imitate/enhance light from a setting/rising sun. It easier for me to make the gold cast unidirectional, which I find difficult to do in post.

Use it as a shade, with or without reflected light.

 

 

Joe's suggestion about using a white board to record experiments/trials is invaluable IMO. Another technique is to shoot very loose (back up/use WA) and capture the reflector and lighting in the image, then you can zoom in/out on your monitor to see what it did in a given situation. I often do both - back away and use a white board.

+1 for the R1C1. Found a used one in perfect shape, already had an SU-800. TTL/CLS/AWL. Can use 1-3 flashes. Diffusion gels on the flashes and BYU.

<p>Another handy chart can be found here - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter</a><br>

To really slow the exposure times in broad daylight, you probably want something in the 8 - 10 stop range. I use a 10-stop, sometimes stacked with a 3 stop or a polarizer (worth roughly 1.5 - 2.5 stops, depending).</p>

<p>The ISO used has an influence on exposure times, and so does aperture, but as Mark noted, Depth-of-Field will be affected, and possibly diffraction unsharpness from using higher f/number apertures (tiny aperture openings can cause fuzzy fine detail).</p>

<p>You could try taking an exposure reading as for a 'normal' photo, decide what shutter speed you want to use form the long-exposure effect you're looking for, and calculate how many stops worth of exposure you need the ND filter to get you. If you're not sure of the exposure time you want for the look you want, you'll have to do some experimentation. You can get some exposure time leeway by adjusting the aperture if you're ok with the DoF result.</p>

<p>As for a low-cost quality ND filter in the 8-10 stop range, look for a decent secondhand one in the classifieds here, or on ebay, craigslist, etc. Many lesser ND filters aren't color-neutral, and some of the quality brands have a warm cast when you get into the 10-stop+ range. Good luck...long-exposure photography is fun.</p>

<p>Steve, you could prolly cobble that up with a GoPro Hero3</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Miguel - I wouldn't look for Nikon to update the 17-35/2.8D any time soon...Nikon already 'updated' it with the 16-35/4, with a slower aperture (and therefore dimmer viewfinder), more bulk, and horrible distortion on the wide end of the zoom range. The 16-35 has VR, but I could care less about VR on a WA zoom. YMMV. The upshot of the 16-35 'update' is that the 17-35 is still being made and sold for about $700 <em>more</em>. I think the 16-35 disappointed a lot of us who wanted to see a 17-35/2.8 update with AF-S, nano coating, and a little bit sharper corners. We're still waiting.</p>

<p>In the meantime, I happily shoot my 17-35/2.8D with a D700. It's not as wide as my 14-24/2.8, but the zoom range is more useful and it takes standard filters, which means it works with a standard Lee holder, which is important to me. I do shoot my 14-24 - just not very often. </p>

<p>I think the 17-35 corner softness thing is overplayed by the internet forum parrots. No non-photographer has ever remarked "gee, that looks soft in the corners" when I showed them a decent image taken with the 17-35. Come to think of it, neither has any photographer (they're usually laughing at my photo instead). If the composition is good, you don't notice the corners. If you need to make a poster sized print from a 24-36 mp file, maybe a 14-24/2.8 or a good WA prime is the way to go. I think you'd really like the 17-35.</p>

<p>I've had a 12-24/4 from D70s > D200 > D7000. It's a great DX UWA, but I switched to a 10-24/3.5-4.5 to get just a little wider. I really like it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Whoops...it double posted.</p>

<p>+1 for what Stephen Doldric said. I have both cameras as well. The AF in the D700 is much better for the OP's purpose. DR, noise, and resolution, for real-world practical purposes, is a wash. The frame rate is almost a wash between a D700 and D7000. The viewfinder of the D700 is definitely bigger and brighter. At the ISOs mentioned, the D7000 will also generate "...a little noise in the shadows". IMO, for the OP's purpose, getting a D7000 would <em>not</em> be an upgrade unless video is a real concern. Obviously, any DSLR with video bests a D700 in that regard.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>>>>16MP is a lot more demanding on lenses than 12MP<<<<br /> Shun, would shooting at a lower MP than the 16MP reduce that phenomenon or is it a hardware issue with global effect?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a physics (optics) issue. It's possible for a sensor to out-resolve a lens. As sensor resolution increases, lenses that are less good optically will show their flaws and weaknesses, especially when images are heavily cropped. The higher the resolution, the more important good glass becomes. With lesser lenses, the advantages of increased sensor resolution are lost.</p>

<p>If one would shoot jpg at less than 16mp, any resolution advantage of the D7000 over the OP's existing D700 is lost. It is not possible to shoot RAW at reduced resolution with a D7000.</p>

<p>Elliott...gentle reminder that f/4 IS wide open with Nikon's 12-24 DX UWA lens. Using the long end (24mm), backing up a tad and lowering the angle if incidence might create shallower DoF and show any potential focus errors more clearly. Just an idea.</p>

<p>Sorry for the late reply - I've just now seen this. I have a Sirui N-2204 and I'm delighted with it. The biggest load I've put on it is D700 + TC17 + 70-200 VRII + SB800 flash + beamer.</p>

<p>I've used Bogen/Manfrotto and Gitzo for years (still have one of each), and the Sirui is my go-to legset for traveling (I work abroad). It does what Sirui says it will do, and yes, one leg is detachable for use as a monopod. It works quite well.</p>

<p>The small size folded and detachable leg make it a winner for me. It's plenty rigid. Came complete with a nice ballistic nylon bag and (additional) stub column. I didn't get their ballhead...already had an Acratech. HTH.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Duplicate post.</p>

 

<p>Disclosure: I own a 14-24/2.8 G and a 17-35/2.8 D. I have no use for a 16-35/4 VR, so I've never bought one. I'll assume here that you're shooting an FX body.</p>

<ol>

<li>Not necessarily. You might even get optical diffraction unsharpness at f/11. I'll assume you're shooting FX.</li>

<li>Well, the 14-24 is much better at 14mm and the 16-35 is much better at 35mm.</li>

<li>Incredibly, from 16-24mm, the perspective is identical on both lenses. You can check the minimum focusing distance for both lenses in their respective specifications at Nikon's website (hint: they're virtually identical in that respect, and so it the 17-35/2.8D). </li>

<li>Polarizing filters work just fine on the ultrawide lenses - it's not a problem inherent to the filter, but rather a color variance issue with open (i.e. blue) sky. Open sky will appear darkest (most saturated) at 90 degrees from the sun. Since an UWA lens can capture wide swaths of open sky, there can be a pronounced saturation variance in an image with a lot of open sky. If there's limited or no open sky in the shot, it's a complete non-issue. I use polarizers all the time with 17-35/2.8 with FX and 10-24 and 12-24 with DX. Polarizers just align light waves and therefore reduce or eliminate haze, glare and glare-induced reflections with non-metallic objects. To me, that's a tool worth having in the bag. YMMV.</li>

<li>Shallow DoF for creative effect really isn't an issue with an UWA lens unless you're getting really, really close to your foreground. If nothing else, f/2.8 will give you a brighter viewfinder for composing. VR will not help subject motion, only camera shake. To me, it's a fairly useless feature on an UWA lens. When I'm shooting landscapes with an UWA lens, I'm using a tripod and ND grad filters. I generally don't advocate shooting wide open, but in a pinch f/2.8 will halve your shutter speed versus f/4.</li>

</ol>

<p>You're overlooking Nikon's 17-35/2.8, though. It's a remarkably good lens, but it gets negative comments in online forums from armchair pixel-peepers who never shot one but are happy to parrot online reviews. Nikon is still selling that lens around 2 1/2 years after its alleged replacement was introduced with good reason. The alleged replacement disappointed a lot of 17-35 users due to being bigger (longer) and slower, with much worse distortion on the short end. I'm talking about the 16-35/4 VR. I'll admit I'm very opinionated about that, but I'm certainly not alone in that opinion. All we wanted was updated optics, AF-S, and nano coating. An aperture ring is unimportant with a DSLR. If you can find a nice used 17-35, I'd go with that. </p>

<p>YMMV, but I seldom shoot landscapes/seascapes at the wide end of my UWA zooms. Sometimes I do, but mostly not. With DX I usually shoot at 15mm and FX at 18mm. I like to use ND grads and ND filters (flowing water) with landscapes, and to me, the 14-24 isn't really all that useful for landscapes. IMO, if you're thinking of getting a UWA that wide to 'get it all in', maybe rethink it or try a 10/12-24 with DX.<br>

HTH</p>

 

<p>I think the OP is looking for a Volkswagen, not a bolwn injected hemi. The popup flash can do the job. Lorne's comment is correct. "I-TTL balanced fill-flash" is what you want. It's through-the-lens metered, and in matrix metering mode the flash fill is auto-calculated by the camera. It's a very good system.</p>

<p>The only caveat to using the popup flash is that a kit lens will usually be fine with it, but, say, a 10-24 or a 17-55/2.8 will throw a shadow where you don't want it because due to their size, the lens/lens hood will partially block the light from the popup flash and throw a shadow halfway up the image. If you're using lenses like that, you'll need to get a speedlight onto the hotshoe, or preferably higher like on a flash bracket. Also, the closer a flash is to the lens axis, the more likely redeye will appear. Otherwise, yeah - the popup will work fine for fill, at least to get you started. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...have noticed lots of tiny light dots all over darker areas of sky..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it's digital noise (hot pixels, chroma noise, etc.) then it should manifest over the entire image, not just the darker areas of the sky. Without seeing an example image, and assuming clear skies, it's possible your camera is 'seeing' stars your eyes don't.</p>

<p>If you're getting digital noise from long exposures, you could try keeping the camera switched off until you're ready to make the exposure, and switch it off afterward to keep noise-inducing heat from building up in the sensor.</p>

<p>Otherwise, it's pretty much what Elliott said.To me, the 3-4 minutes the camera takes to do the dark frame subtraction LENR for a single exposure image is probably less time that it would take to fix it in post. YMMV.</p>

<p>Having started with film photograpy in 1967, been on and off over the years, and being all-digital since '09, I'll echo and add a couple of obeservations and opinions:</p>

<ul>

<li>As previously stated, shoot RAW. It's the digital negative. Ideally, no in-camera processing is applied, like sharpening, color balance/saturation, contrast, etc. It's supposed to be what the sensor sees. RAW looks worse than jpg until you do a conversion to a rendered file and do those processing steps. RAW gives more latitude for adjustments in post than any other format. Jpg is awful for this because it's a compressed file format, where data is dropped and replaced by an algorithm. RAW keeps all your data intact. I always work from a copy of a RAW file and keep my 'original' RAW files somewhere safe where they can't be corrupted or lost..in other words, not in the computer's onboard hard drive. </li>

<li>Some people whine about converting hundreds of shots from RAW, but LR and other converters will do batch processing. In the time it takes to go to the bathroom or get a cup of coffee, the conversions are done. What those people don't tell you is that they probably have some blown shots somewhere that could have been salvaged if they had been shot in RAW format.</li>

<li>Keep copies of your image files safe. Data storage is cheap. Use external drives, copy them, and keep one copy in a safe location outside your home. Not to sound paranoid, but lightning, house fires, catastrophic plumbing leaks, tornados, and other unforeseeable things happen, and everyone thinks it won't happen to them. I learned this lesson from Hurricane Katrina.</li>

<li>When shooting RAW, White Balance is a freebie - it's completely adjustable with no penalty regarding image quality. Set your camera to shoot RAW and use auto-white balance. I got your back on this one, Sarah. :)</li>

<li>The little image you see on the camera' LCD screen is a jpg rendering done in-camera for that reason, and will use whatever contrast/saturation/WB/sharpening/etc. options you've set the camera for, but only WB will affect the RAW file, and then only as a starting place (gotta start from somewhere, right?). If you want to keep the LCD review image 'honest' to determine things like exposure bracketing, etc., set the in-camera jpg settings as neutral as possible.</li>

<li>With the current sensor technology, the bright end of your exposures should be treated like slide film (chromes). Overexposure in digital is rather unforgiving. The darker areas are more like print film, and much detail can be recovered. Blown-out highlights are not recoverable in post.</li>

<li>The white cat in snow and black cat in a coal bunker exposure compensation rules all still apply. So do the ones for people's skin tones. You seem to know the camera's meter is a starting point, and not the received word. Do learn to read the exposure histogram before you violate the 'rules'. IMO people that live and die by the histogram are textbook examples of the tail wagging the dog. Not every exposure should be perfectly balanced. I shoot low key a lot myself, and my histograms look like it. </li>

<li>Filters: polarizing, ND, graduated ND, and maybe specialty filters like UV or IR will be all you need. No need for warming, cooling, tungsten/daylight, etc. There is a need for certain fluorescent filters depending on the bulb type, or, you can use something like an X-Rite Passport and thir software to create a calibrated color profile for just about any lighting.</li>

<li>Image processing: Lightroom for image organizing (database...think keywords and how you'll find image files years later - LR does this very well), printing, and a few other tasks, and oh - it's an excellent global image editor with a couple of local editing tools thrown in. Editing-wise, it's almost identical to Adobe Camera RAW, but with a much better and intuitive GUI. For pixel-level editing, I wouldn't go to the expense of Photoshop until I were shre I needed all the features. Instead, I'd get Adobe Photoshop Elements. That program is all grown up now, and does what photgraphers need to do at much less cost than PS. Now, I use LR and PS, but if I were starting over, I'd use PSE. I've also tried DxO as a global editor/RAW converter, and it's very nice, too. LR will do the everyday tasks quickly and painlessly - RAW conversion, exposure/contract/color/sharpening/noise reduction/lens distortion correction (automated for supported lenses/cameras), and a few other things as well as level, crop, etc., and it never alters the original image file - completely non-destructive editing. It's the 'gold standard' for good reason. I'd start there. </li>

<li>To convert to B&W, get Nik Silver Efex Pro. Worth it! Actually, I run Nik's Complete Collection for LR, and seldom need to PP beyond that.</li>

<li>More megapixels isn't necessarily better, unsharpness at small apertures due to optical diffraction seems more of a problem with digital, especially as the sensor size decreases</li>

<li>Digital shots are cheap - take lots of extras (bracket, bracket, bracket) especially if the scene is fleeting or your return to reshoot is unlikely. You can always delete the clunkers and extras.</li>

<li>As said before, do use a card reader to download image files...it's much faster and doesn't depend on the camera's battery. I just drag and drop mine into my starting folder, copy it to an external drive, then import into LR. When you're done downloading, put the card back in the camera and format it right then and there. Then it'll be ready-ready for shooting again. </li>

<li>Don't be afraid to review images on the LCD. It's usually best to make sure you got the shot before you move on to something else. Chimping is another matter, and it's pretty funny to watch. Review is looking; chimping is when you call your friends over to see the image you're so proud of, and the group gathers around the LCD, makes pointing gestures, 'oooh' and 'aaah' vocalizations and, in general looks like a bunch of chimpanzees with a digital camera. It's more fun than a barrel of monkeys to watch, and most of us have been guilty of it at one time or another.</li>

<li>Don't worry about what the image looks like on your monitor in terms of sharpness, color, etc. If you want to see what you're really got, make a print. Your monitor has nowhere near the resolution of a print.</li>

<li>You'll want to calibrate that monitor as well, so that what you're seeing is accurate. It the color/gamut/tint/contrast, etc of the monitor is off, you haven't got a prayer of getting the post-processing right.</li>

<li>Lastly, although I'm a Nikon guy, you got yourself a good camera to get started in digital photography with. Enjoy, and keep coming around to photo.net! </li>

</ul>

<p>Short answer: 45mm (equivalent).<br /> Said another way, the focal length of a lens doesn't change whether it's a DX lens or not. The sensor on a DX camera is smaller than the sensor of a 'full-frame' camera, so it crops off part of the image, capturing a smaller part of the image, which makes it appear to have been shot with a longer lens.<br /> <br />DX lenses have the same focal length as FX/35mm film lenses, but they project a smaller image circle at the rear of the camera. Since a DX sensor isn't as large as an FX sensor/35mm film frame, a full-size image circle isn't required to cover it. The smaller image circle design allows the lenses to be smaller, lighter, and less expensive than FX lenses for a given focal length. The focal length, angle of view, and f/stop exposure calculation of lenses doesn't change whether they're DX or FX - only the size of the image circle changes.</p>

<p>The math (if you care): 35mm film frame/FX digital sensor size is basically 24mm x 36mm. DX is basically 16mm x 24mm. The aspect ratio (3:2 width:height) is the same for either. The DX sensor's total surface area is 2/3 the size of FX. The reciprocal (1/x) of 2/3 is 1÷(2/3) = 1.5, hence the 1.5 'crop factor'. The 'crop factor' can be used as a multiplier to a lens' focal length to estimate what focal length lens would yield the equivalent angle of view on FX/35mm film. Example: to match the angle of view of a 30mm lens used on a DX body, you'd need to use a 45mm lens with an FX/35mm film body (30mm x 1.5 = 45mm). HTH.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I should probably preface this with: yes, I'll dig up the manual and read it, but in the interim I'll ask here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My interim answer is: see the Nikon D600 manual, p. 107, 3rd sentence under "3 Adjust Settings". <br /></p>

<p>If you want to get the color right, and get it right across different models of cameras, then get an X-Rite Passport and color profile your camera. Cant really go wrong for the money. With a color-calibrated monitor and color managed print system, you're there.</p>

 

<p>Responding to the OP, there's something not so obvious you'd lose that may or may not matter to you: AEB. The D600 AEB is the same as the D7k, which is the same as the D70/70s from '05...meaning intentionally cheap and limiting, if that feature matters to you. So much for technological advances. It's a slightly overgrown D7k, I think, with maybe better DR than the D700 and a little more resolution, too. </p>

<p>I know what NAS feels like, but I'd wait, and maybe upgrade a CF tripod and Acratech head, get some lighting or an ND grad filter set, now software/new monitor, and wait and see how the D600 prices look after the upcoming holiday season. Me, I'm keeping my D700 and D7k for a while yet, but if you want a D600, then quit rationalizing it and just make yourself happy. Sounds like you have the lens end ready. Have fun!</p>

 

<p>I got a D70s with a kit 18-55. Then I got an 18-200 VR. Then I got a 12-24 and the world changed. Then an 80-400...finally sharp tele (if a bit slow focusing). The 12-24 migrated with me from D70s through D200 to D7000, and it's still a great lens. Don't worry about loverlap...it prevents lens changes. Nowadays I shoot 10-24 DX, 17-55/2.8 DX, and 70-200/2.8 VRII, with a TC17 hid in the bag, and a 10.5mm fish. And a 35/1.8 and 50/1.4G. The 18-200 stays on the shelf. I even prefer the D7k kit lens 18-105 with the distortion and all that for single-lens street shooting...can clean any distortion there in post.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Happy with my Really Right Stuff <a href="http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=B150-B-Pkg&type=3&eq=&desc=B150-B-Pkg%3a-For-collared-macro-lenses&key=it">focusing rail.</a> They also make a model with <a href="http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=B150-B-Ult-Pkg&type=3&eq=&desc=B150-B-Ultimate-Pkg%3a-Two-B150-B-Rails&key=it">two screw-type cross slides.</a> RRS screws are smooth and tight, and move about .050" / 1.25mm per turn. That's fine enough movement for me. YMMV.</p>

<p>I have D7k and D700. I have plenty of WA and UWA lenses for both. The D7k kit: 17-55/2.8 rocks! Also use 10.5 fish, 10-24/3.5-4.5, 70-200 VRII, 35/1.8 and 55/1.4. And grandpa - 80-400 VR. It rawks too, just slow enough to focus I can't do BIF like the 70-200 with a 1.7TC. Seriously, that 17-55/2.8 is a monster workhorse for DX. Put it together with a 10-24 or 12-24 and you can't go wrong. </p>