david lloyd

Coincidently, I was messing around with this and other options only this weekend. There are

a few alternatives, but none better than the one you know. I tried with some success using

AppleScript, using BlueTooth to use a phone or Palm organiser as a wireless remote to trigger

the camera via the Mac - all worked ok, but suffered a delay of a second or two when

activating the camera.

The best solution was using Nikon Capture's Nikon Control application, as you have. I only

wish - for myself - I could disable the transfer of the file to the Mac, and just leave it on the

camera, but there seems no option to change that.

How about a Nikkor 50mm 1.8? Not a zoom, but cheap (100-150 dollars), and just about the

sharpest lens you could ever put on your camera. It would not let you down...

I'm kind of intersted in Thom Hogan's Complete Guide to the Nikon D200. The only thing that has stopped

me purchasing it thus far is that I like to browse a book before I buy. So given that this is not possible in

this case, can anyone post their thoughts on it or write a quick review even?

I'm fairly well versed in Nikon and film and digital beginning with a Nikon 801s (8008) in 1988, so one of

those little camera field guides I've already seen won't help me too much.

If Thom Hogan reads this, then have you considered having a sample chapter of your books available as a

free download?

Thanks for any insights...

Converting to JPEG won't help printing, if that was your intention. A JPEG's reduced file size is

just that - the file size on disk. When you open it into memory for viewing it becomes the

same size than if it were a TIFF or Photoshop file, and behaves that way accordingly. If

anything a flattened Photoshop file will open quicker. I know this is not answering your

question as such, sorry if I'm slighty off beam...

I'm looking at an Epson P-2000 for CF storage, but I can't see anywhere on Epson's site where it states

compatibility with the Nikon d200. I can see a firmware update there, but only includes Nikon cameras up

to the d70s. This is also reflected in the device's specs.

Can anyone elaborate as to whether it can in fact support Nikon's d200 (even if by way of firmware

update)?

Many thanks...

Todd, it seems to be exposing OK at f5.0, a third under at 4.5 and two thirds under at 4.0.

I'm not going to get too bothered whether this is a bum copy tho. I'd prefer to shoot at 5.6 if

I can. At least I know where it's shortcomings are so I can adjust accordingly.

Having said that I'll give Sigma a bell. They're quite helpful here in the UK.

But if anyone else knows of this thing, then I'm keen to know. I've heard stuff about Sigma

underexposing before I think...

I just ran a few more shots. It underexposes consistently by 0.7 of a stop at f4 only. None of

my other (nikon) lenses seem to show this.

I'm wondering if anyone has experiences a Sigma 100-300 f4 underexposuring at it's widest aperture of

f4 (but not on other aperture settings). Is this my lens, do you think, or just a known thing I'm not aware

of? It seems to underexpose by about half a stop or so on a Nikon d200...

Thank you for the responses... so a monopod will be a good buy. I'd hate to be stuck

somewhere at twilight and miss a few shots with a long lens...

Eric, what do you mean by "Combine it with the po' mans IS of shooting off a sequence of

shot"?

I'm only seeking generic answers, if that is all possible. Say I have a d200 with a 300 f/4. How many stops

might I gain with a monopod? Can I go from say 1/500 second to 1/60th (3 stops)?

I'm looking for a monopod, and this sort of insight might help me...

Mats C - go to my portfolio here on PN - the flamingo there is taken with my 100-300 with a

1.4. I support your view re safaris and zooms. One article I read recently described that in

some cases 300mm was too long, and so had to resort to a shorter length. Long is often

best, but not absolutely always.

Mats C - No you have to send it in. Sigma have their way of doing it. Sigma here in the UK

told me it would take about a week.

Both these lenses can be updated by Sigma via firmware update to enable full functionality

with the d200. The update is free. However you may be lucky in that recent batches of

lenses from Sigma are already updated and compatible with the d200. I found out about

my 100-300 by calling Sigma and they said that all of those lenses with a serial beyond

5000000 were ok. My lens was fine. The same I guess for both lenses. Note that this is

firmware, not a re-chip.

I have the 100-300 and a 1.4 converter, and I'm very pleased with it. Reviews claim it's the

best and sharpest zoom Sigma has made, and also very very little loss of quality with the

converter. It works very nicely with my new d200,fast and smooth.

No, but you could implement a Photoshop action to do the same. Record an action of you

setting the brush attributes, then run that action to set the brush for the appropriate file

template.

Hi,

If I were to purchase used items from the likes of Keh or Adorama, what extra tax might I expect to pay

when it arrives into the United Kingdom? (I'm just not sure if tax applies to used items.)

Many thanks...

Hi all...

I'm keen to compare a Sigma 300 2.8 tele to a Sigma 120-300 2.8 zoom, and if anyone here has

experiences of these, I'm keen to know what you might think...

I've considered perhaps a 300 tele, but given that a 120-300 zoom costs only a little more and weighs

only a little more, I curious to know how some might justify the tele.

Obviously some will argue for the tele as regards to qualy, but is there really that much difference?

For what it's worth I already have the Sigma 100-300 2.8 zoom, and I still may be persuaded to hang onto

that instead of upgrading....

Many thanks if you can tell of your experiences with these lenses... :)

Thanks everyone - it's a no brainer really, I'm going to purchase the 10-20. There are no

advantages to the 12-24 for use on digital cameras.

Many thanks for your feedbacks :)

I think my best option is to either use this one for a bit longer - tho I'm wary of the fungus

being infectious - or sell it for a small sum, and that put it towards a more recent clean used

180. That would surely be more economical than a repair.

Hi all...

I've an older Nikon AF 180 2.8 lens, which I'm quite fond of. It's about 18 years old now It's an older

marque- with the smooth plasicy barrel.

Now I'm wondering if I'd be wasting time and money to replace it with a new one. That's because my

current one now has fungus within - a white spot about 2-3 mm in diameter, one third in from the outer

edge of the lens element. I'm not sure if it's on the outside on inside of it.

I'm told it's not worth spending for a cleanup. I'm also told the fungus wouldn't affect image quality of

photos either. I was told this by a reputable Nikon repairman (over the phone).

But the other point is - would a new Nikon lens focus faster/better than my old one on a Nikon d70s and

d200? (The olde one kinda hunts around a bit compared with my 18-70 Silent Wave.)

I'd be interested in any comments.

I'm trying not to justify a new lens for the sake of a 'nice new lens' :)

You could consider the Sigma 100-300 f4... It is similar in size, weight and price to the

Nikkor 300 f4. Some consider this the best lens Sigma has made, with very good reviews

concerning optical quality and build. I have, and I'm pleased with it. The autofocus is very fast

- via Sigma's HSM motor (equivalent to Nikon's Silent Wave).

MUCH better than your Sigma 70-300...

I did an internet search, but it revealed nothing for me...

Can anyone make any comment on the Sigma 12-24 versus a Sigma 10-20? I am digital only so the

apparent usefulness of the 12-24 for film is no use for me. I'm not overly concerned about size and

weight.

Apart from the extra mm at the short end (which is a fair bit, I know) would the 10-20 have any

advantages over the 12-24? I'm referring to quality and CA, etc...

Perhaps the only disadvantage of the 12-24 is it only accepts rear type gelatin filters(?) Can I not put a

polarizer on the front if I want to?

(I'm sure some will pop up with references to the Tokina and Nikon - they are welcome, but the Nikon - as

much as I'd like it - is a little out of reach for me pricewise at the moment.)

Many thanks for any opinion...