jwallphoto

<p>I had a 17-35mm that had a whine when focusing. It was a great lens that never gave me any trouble, although I mainly used it in MF mode. I did get it at a discount, though, because the whine was considered a kind of blemish. I wouldn't send the lens in for service just to cure the whine, but over time I think you might get sick of hearing it.</p>

<p>I finally replaced the stock lens collar on my 300/4 when the old one fell apart and wouldn't let me turn the lens anymore. I wish I'd done it a long time ago! The replacement collar, by the way, has the Arca-style mount built in, so you don't have to buy a separate one. I have the Kirk collar, and it is excellent.</p>

<p>Hi, Brad. Hey, I was going to post a link to your blog after some of the early messages, but then you popped in yourself. ;)</p>

<p>Did anyone see the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_P5jOoDDbI">recent video</a> of the girl who got punched by the cop in Seattle? Toward the end of the video, you see the cop *surrounded* by people shooting video of him. It was kind of hilarious in a macabre way.</p>

<p>I tend to find echos/fringing in stacks whether I use the focus control or the rail, especially if I stack more than 6-8 images. I'd love to see a "best practices" piece on focus stacking.</p>

<p>I also use Enfuse and find I can usually get a good, natural-looking result. I wish it ran faster, but I'm on a 32-bit system w/ 4GB of RAM. I don't know if Enfuse is even capable of doing grunge HDR, though, and have never tried to get that kind of result. I use CS4 so can't help you there. If you download the trial versions, you can run the same set of images in the different programs and see which you like best.</p>

<p>Definitely get certified diving first. I knew I was going to love diving, only to find out on my certification dive that I have clogged ear canals and can't clear properly. Diving below even fifteen feet is very painful.</p>

<p>If you're going to get vignetting, it'll happen at any time of day. You can buy a thin-mount polarizer to reduce your chances of vignetting. But I wouldn't worry about using a polarizer for sunrise in any case. You've already got beautiful light at that time of day.</p>

<p>I'm interested to know why you'd want to get around it. Is this a focus-stacking issue?</p>

<p>Interesting. I'll be looking for your book. I also couldn't resist posting a link to John Hallmen's Flickr page (he's the guy I was thinking of when I used the term "remarkable"). I think it would be interesting to anyone into macro: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/johnhallmen/">http://www.flickr.com/people/johnhallmen/</a></p>

<p>I'm surprised no one has updated Shaw's book for the digital age. There are folks using sub-DSLR cameras with their increased depth of field abilities (due to smaller sensors) to do remarkable work. The whole field of focus-stacking is new and eliminates the need for long focal lengths to isolate a subject against a background. True, you can't always focus-stack your subject, but still. Even mirror lock-up was much more critical to sharp photos in older film cameras than it is in mirror-slap-dampened DSLRs. Improved ISO capacities have given us more options in exposure settings. Flash is much easier to get good results with. I've even seen amazing macro photography done by placing the subject on a flatbed scanner, another tool that didn't exist when Shaw wrote that book.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. I've actually been checking out the Zeiss. I even joined their Flickr group. Hardly anything they shoot is macro, but there's lots of excellent photography. I already have a PN-11. I agree that the 300/4 AF-S is great for close-ups, but it doesn't cut it for macro.</p>

<p>Although, now that I think about it, I've never tried it with the PN-11. Sooooo, I just did. It fit! The PN-11 on the 300/4 and 1.7X give about a 1:1.7 magnification with a working distance of 38 inches. Pretty interesting! That's the same ratio I get with the PN-11 on the 200/Micro Ai-S, by the way.</p>

<p>A couple of months ago I dropped my 105mm micro AF-D on a rock in the desert. It still works as a manual focus lens, but the barrel is too mashed for AF. It's a struggle to turn the lens in certain spots. So even though it works, I'm thinking about replacing it, especially in light of the news (to me) that the 1.7X teleconverter I use on my 300/4 AF-S will also work on the 105mm AF-S.</p>

<p>My 200mm micro is an old Ai-S version and only goes to 1:2, so I've been thinking about replacing that lens too. I love the reach of the 200mm vs. the 105mm, but I really want be able to move in on certain subjects to get 1:1.</p>

<p>So I'm wondering if using a TC on a 105mm AF-S is actually any good, or what. In a perfect world I could easily afford both lenses as well as a slave -- er, I mean, assistant -- to carry my gear. But I'm thinking about just having one new macro lens, either the 105mm which I could use a TC with, or a 200mm that gets 1:1. Any of your thoughts on the pros and cons will be most welcome.</p>

<p>The main issue is going to be price. If you make a photo book through Lulu or Blurb, for example, even using the cheapest paper and binding options, you will be hard-pressed to be able to charge more than a buck or two beyond your own cost of production (for a $20 book).</p>

<p>On the other hand, I know a guy who makes his own prints on matte paper, staples the sides, puts black tape over the staples, and voila. Homemade booklet. He gives them out to people he photographs on the streets. Very cheap to produce, and a nice unique product. You can see a picture of those booklets (just below the coffee cup) in the bottom photo in this post: <a href="http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/?p=4527">http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/?p=4527</a></p>

<p>D300s, 12-24mm, 105mm Micro, 300mm, 1.7X, tripod (for nature photography), and I can sacrifice the 300mm in certain situations, though almost always with a touch of regret.</p>

<p>FWIW, in that Three Sisters photo, the "uneven" sea stacks are all obviously darkened by the filter. It also looks like he might have tilted the filter (easy to do handheld as long as your filter is wide enough to cover your lens).</p>

<p>In the Cannon Beach shot, the filter might have been holding back the top 50-60% of the frame, so the "horizon" (actually somewhere below the surf line) isn't uneven at all.</p>

<p>Once you get out and try using your filter you'll get a feel for it. You have to burn film and practice to determine what works for you. I'd suggest that on scenes you really want, try several frames with the filter at different spots, and also w/o a filter at all.</p>

<p>Why not just get the Panasonic DMW-LC55? I don't know about the adapter, but I doubt the Raynox will go on the FZ by itself. It's got clips that you push in from the side, then place over your lens. You release the clips and the lens is secure. I'd be surprised if it fit on a little FZ.</p>

<p>I just realized the LC-55 requires an adapter, so I would guess the Raynox would require the same one since it's made for the same 55mm lens diameter.</p>

<p>I've never been able to get my B+W thin-mount polarizer perfectly clean.</p>

<p>I use the 300/4 with 1.7X (500mm equivalent). You won't be disappointed with its ability to focus close. I blogged on it here: <a href="http://jwallphoto.blogspot.com/2009/10/favorite-lenses.html">http://jwallphoto.blogspot.com/2009/10/favorite-lenses.html</a>. Incidentally (if you read the post), I did get the Kirk replacement collar because the original collar basically wore out. Collar's only an issue for tripod-users, though.</p>

<p>200mm Micro AF-S</p>

<p>Feisol carbon fiber CT-3342 is what I got. It's just under $400 now. It's been a good tripod, much nicer -- taller and lighter -- than my old metal Manfrotto. My only issues are the rubber feet are easily lost. All three were lost on my first mountain trip, but they replaced them for free, and I now have them hot-glued on. Another issue is the leg tension comes undone after a few days of use, so you'll have a leg that swings around too much. Finally, the top plate can also come loose, causing your ballhead to wiggle slightly. Both the leg and top plate can be re-tightened very easily with a hex wrench, but you need two different sizes, one big and one tiny. I didn't get a center post, but I'm six feet and don't have to bend over at all with the legs completely extended.</p>

<p>I've got a Kirk BH-3 ballhead on mine. This is the third tripod I've had the Kirk on (each of my previous two Manfrottos went belly-up after about three years). I shoot a D300s with up to a 300/4 and 1.7X.</p>

<p>You can do it in Photoshop, as Dan says, but it's far easier to do in Helicon Focus. I blogged about the difference if you're interested: <a href="http://jwallphoto.blogspot.com/2010/03/stacked-denizens.html">http://jwallphoto.blogspot.com/2010/03/stacked-denizens.html</a></p>

<p>Yeah, you need an entomologist, not a botanist. I've been tempted to buy <a href="http://www.amazon.com/California-Western-States-Natural-History/dp/0520248864">this book</a>, but I don't really run into interesting galls that often. Haven't developed the eye for 'em, I guess.</p>

<p>If your main thing is landscapes and macros, a D300 with 12-24mm and a 105mm micro is very light and all you need. Switch to a carbon-fiber tripod if you're not already using one. I think about lightening the load quite a bit, but I'm still too into nature photography to give up the dslr.</p>

<p>I love shooting with my D300s -- the way it feels, the controls, the speed of AF and CF-card-writing -- and I shoot almost everything from a tripod. My landscapes often require lots of depth of field which necessitates a slow shutter speed. My tripod-mounted macro shots are always carefully framed, often require slow shutter speeds and remote release, and are sometimes focus-stacked. I often use a 300mm w/ 1.7X, and putting it on a tripod means I can keep the ISO down and use slower shutter speeds, frame my shots more carefully, and carry it around on my shoulder.</p>

<p>Now if I found a 4/3 forum full of the kinds of photos I take, I'd probably dump the dslr. But that day hasn't come. I did recently buy a smaller camera backpack so I can more easily go out with just part of the load. In the end it will come down to your own commitment to your art. Or at least, thinking about it that way might make you feel better about sucking it up and hauling the load.</p>

<p>You might check out Raynox products too: <a href="http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/digital/d_slr/index.html">http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/digital/d_slr/index.html</a></p>

<p>I've been using a DCR 250 on my 105mm Micro-Nikkor which presumably gives me a 2.5:1 reproduction ratio. All the shots on my most recent blog post (<a href="http://jwallphoto.blogspot.com/2010/04/variations-on-lupine.html">http://jwallphoto.blogspot.com/2010/04/variations-on-lupine.html</a>) were done with the combo.</p>

<p>I also go with 300/4 AF-S, but with a 1.7X TC (still much smaller than a 2X). That puts you at 500mm @ f/6.7. It's lightweight and can be shot hand-held for those times you need to get it off the tripod. I wouldn't think of going manual focus if I could afford to get AF. With AF-S you can still manually focus even when you're set on AF. For the times when you want to grab focus control from the lens, it's worth a lot to be able to just do it, rather than having to switch the lens back to MF first.</p>

<p>The 10-pin connector on my D200 is just about belly-up. The plastic around the metal connectors is falling apart and gumming up the works so that a remote release can't make the connection. I've called Nikon and a local Nikon authorized repair shop, and neither one will even give me a ballpark estimate of the cost of replacing the connector. So I was wondering: has anyone had this done and know what it costs? I kinda figure it'll be more than I want to spend, but who knows. Thanks.</p>