david lloyd

Hi,

I have Thom Hogan's D200 and I got it all on 90 odd sheets of paper for a 7mm thick

bound tome.

I was able to print it at 4 pages per sheet and doubled sided printing also. It's perfectly

readable because his PDF pages are quite small anyway.

-David

If I understand the question correctly - there already is one - it's built into Photoshop CS2 at

least. Go to its preferences and enable the history log.

Hi,

Can anyone comment on the optimum shutter speed for 200mm VR? I'm asking this because I've seen it

written (somewhere) where 1/15th may yield better results than say, 1/60th. Can this be true?

Also, in the case where my shutter speeds are about 1/250th (at 200mm), do I leave VR on or off?

Has anyone any experience or results on this?

-David

I decided on the 1.4, then went to pick up the 70-200 with the 1.4 then at the last minute

got the 1.7 converter, and I'm pleased that I did. So far so good, but not had a chance to try

things out yet. Many thanks for all your responses :)

If you are in London, I recommend Gray's of Westminster - wonderful shop, and wonderful

service.

Thank you for your responses - they've been helpful. I'm mainly to use it in dry climes, so I'll

save my money and get the Slim Circular Polarizer. Many thanks.

Shun,

What you say is correct - albeit only from an optics sharpness point of view. Like I've said,

I'm looking for other factors. An outstanding distance photo will often be better than a

slightly sharper one with poorer framing. Other factors include what is going in your bag,

how often you choose to the longer lengths and your trade-off acceptances for these. For

myself, it's the 70-200 with a converter. I'd use the 70-200 range more than most and

only occasionally more. A zoom, *and* a long prime, as well as my wide-angle is too much

for my bag. There's no definitive solution for all - obviously - but I'm seeking the odd clue

that would help my decision.

I have some seen excellent photos of a fox in a wildlife book I have taken with a 300

(prime) and with both a 2.0 and 1.4 converter on, and not stopped down. I wouldn't know

that by looking at that 8 by 10 inch photo. If only a 1.4 was employed, the photo I guess

would not have been published.

Unfortunately there seems a bit *too* much emphasis on optical sharpness only these

days when considering a buy.

Hi,

I have a choice to purchase a "B+W Slim Circular Polarizer" or a "B+W kaesemann MRC SLIM Circular

Polarizer".

So what is the difference between the two? Or are they the same thing described differently?

I'll be using it on a Nion 12-24 wide-angle.

Many thanks if you can help.

-David

Raymond,

You made an excellent point: "I usually do not stop down because I want maximum

isolation."

I didn't consider this initially and it helps me a lot.

I, too, normally like to shoot wider open to isolate. To gain sharper images, especially with

converters - as Shun suggests, you need to close down. If I have to close down another

stop with the 1.7 over the 1.4, I'm going to opt out of the 1.7 and prefer the 1.4.

This is exactly the kind of clue I was looking for when I posted my question. Many

thanks :)

Luis,

True: "acceptably sharp" has different interpretations to different people. But you've answered

my question well - a 1.4 lens is sharper at one stop less than the 1.8. That's good, many

thanks... :)

One quick question if anyone can answer...

At what aperture point does each of the 1.4 and 1.8 50 mm lenses become quite acceptably sharp? (i.e. is

it f4 on one and 2.8 on the other?) (Assuming that they might be a little soft wide open.)

-David L

I absolutely appreciate views on the TC14 and TC17 on lenses other than the 70-200 VR,

however I'm prompted to post this thread on the basis that whil the TC17 may be excellent

on a prime, it has trouble with the 70-200.

At least that was what I read in one thread somewhere. So it seems that various

combinations vary is performance and quality. While a converter may be excellent on one

lens it might not be so on another, albeit similar, one.

I'm much aware of the optical difference between a TC-14 and a TC-17 now. What I'm

most interested in is where they compare regarding color, contrast, (bokeh?), and AF

speed.

Sharpness is one thing, but not everything (particularly at normal viewing distances

without a loupe)...

Anyone?

The little extra reach is definitely a consideration. I've just read Shun's piece with the test

shots as well. That is very useful, but I am also interested in other factors besides optics.

Currently my feeling is if I have a 1.4 I might use it all the time in a safari truck, but if I have a

1.7, I would use it only part time. I don't know why I feel this - it's no more that a gut feeling.

I'd like to know how others might think about this...

Hi,

I do realize that TC-14 or TC-17 threads have been posted before.

On Monday, I'm acquiring a new 70-200 2.8 VR, and I need to decide between the TC-14 or TC-17. I'm

asking for anyones experience of these converters - their pros and cons with this lens especially.

I've seen threads of these converters, but mainly coupled with other (prime) lenses. I am for the 70-200

2.8 VR, I've thought long and hard about it - any others lens is out of the picture.

My primary picture taking is of general and wildlife. In case you want to kindly suggest that I may need a

longer lens, know that I'm selling a Sigma 100-300 + 1.4 for my new setup. I'm prefering more of the

70mm end than the 300mm one for my purposes, based on my picture taking history so far.

I'm not overly bothered by test charts, but more of the differences that might be visible on a final 12 by

14 inch print, say.

I'm to be using these on a D200.

Sorry to be so specific, but I really want to thwart chart/brick wall/loupe type responses because I'd expect

most of my pictures won't be examined using a loupe anyway...

Any other comments egarding these I'll welcome. Many thanks if anyone can supply the benefits of each

these two converters. It will be much appreciated :)

-David

Hey, that's a good idea. When one of my batteries in the MB-200 gets low, I can swap them.

I'm still not sure how much life I'll add to my batteries doing this, I guess if I knew it would

make quite a difference then I'll have the motivation to swap in use.

Do the tutorial that comes with the software. To my mind there's no better way to

introduce yourself to Photoshop. I can't recommend it enough. Do this before buying any

book, *then* go and buy a book. You'll gain more ground in a day or two than you will

with a book.

I've been using Photoshop since the olden days, and upon each new release, I'll still find

time to do the tutorial, because it gets me up to speed far quicker than scratching around

in books.

Even good books can tend to leave out the very basic stuff, so you end up trying to figure

that out before you can move on with the good stuff. The tutorial doesn't do that.

Thank you for the responses... So the issue is heat, and therefore the ultimate life of the

battery.

I suppose I'll keep my Slow Charger and use that as a primary one, and maybe get a Quick

Chargerone for when I need it most like when I'm away? I don't know, maybe I'll think about it

first:)

Thank you for the responses. I just carry on regardless. It'll probably not make much

difference, if any. Maybe there is always a tiny bit of charge left in the battery, even if the

camera says empty anyway.

I bought some Energizer Rechargeable AA batteries today with an Energizer Compact Charger. To charge

my batteries with this charger takes 8.5 hours. I know about one hour chargers, but I remember reading

somewhere to avoid them. Is this correct? (I can't find the source of that info anymore.)

Surely with a one hour charger something has to give. Can anyone throw some light on this for me?

Have you considered booting you Mac into Windows and working from there on a Windows

version of Capture NX? (I've not, tho.)

For me it's far too slow on an iMac 2.0 GHz with 2gb of Memory. In particular it's the screen

draws and screen updates that are too slow. I'm favoring Adobe's Lightroom, which is pretty

fast.

I've read in various places where it's not a good idea to completely drain Li-ion batteries for it may shorten

their lives. However when I use two in a Nikon d200's MB-200 battery pack, is does appear to drain one

completely before using the other one.

Can anybody comment on this?

I can also nominate the Apple Quicktake (1994) which was the first (consumer-level) digital

camera, I think. (640 by 480 pixel resolution.)

Or how about the first commercially manufactured one, which was the Kodak DCS-100

(1991)? It was 1.3 megapixels, based on a Nikon, and sold for 13,000 dollars.

Thanks Ramses, but I did ask for the life of the battery *relative* to the EN-EL3 batteries, i.e

is it similar or half, etc, in my original question... I realise everyone will have different styles

thus affecting the battery life. Nevertheless, I will read the link you posted - thank you...

Can anyone give a reasonable indication as to the number of shots a d200 can take using NiMH batteries

in the MB-200 battery pack (relative to that of the two EN-EL3's)? Assume that I am shooting raw files

only.

Also, which would be preferable: NiMH's or Lithiums?

Oh, I have searched here and elsewhere, but it seems that the answers differ to much to draw a proper

conclusion.

Many thanks for any input!