john_n._wall

Its a LONG WAY from Virginia to Savannah! A long way. You are talking about covering lots of ground, at least 600 miles. And if you do stick to the coast, the roads do not lend themselves to covering long distances at interstate speed.

If you want to cover all that distance, I suggest getting up early for sunrise shots and then traveling during midday, stopping for sunset shots where you find yourself. Perhaps even traveling some at night, to preserve as much day time for shooting.

You will have several kinds of scenic landscapes and other sites to shoot. Ocean shots all the way. Sound shots -- expanses of open water over the NC Sounds -- that can be calm with great reflections (good for sunset shots) or can be choppy depending on the weather.

Lighthouses, esp on the Outer Banks of NC. Sunrise shots, sunset shots. Shore scenes, shore life -- birds. Small towns, esp Ocrakoke Island, and other fishing villages. Lots of old (and new) boats.

Small cities -- Morehead City and Wilmington in NC, Georgetown and Charlestown in SC, and of course Savannah, all with scenic older homes and other interesting things.

There is a repetitive quality to some of this, after all. Especially if Williamsburg is a priority -- that should take you at least a full day or longer -- one could make a case for your focusing on the NC Outer Banks and work your way down to Morehead City. That would give you the barrier islands, the sounds, Ocrakoke, a couple of long ferry rides, and you might be able to get in a dash to Wilmington at the end. There is also the Great Dismal Swamp inland from the VA/NC border as well.

There are people who make a life's work shooting in this area. Kinda hard to think about shooting it seriously in a week. Maybe you want to just focus on driving down this time and make notes for visits to come.

I live two hours from Wilmington -- don't get there as much as I'd like. Have fun!

Lots of great photo opportunities! Look up NC and SC travel and tourism sites for starters. In NC, go to Southport (an old fishing village) and take the ferry to Bald Head Island -- great lighthouse and lots of spots for bird photos and beach scenes. Also, great shots along the inlsnd waterway behind the barrier islands that make up the coast.

The NC coast is much less developed than the SC coast, but there are parks in SC, and Brookgreen Gardens is worth a visit south of Myrtle Beach.

Also, check the archives of photo.net AND rec.photo.technique.nature for prior discussions of this topic.

Hope this gets you started

Get the Kenko Pro TC (apparently also sold by Tamron) The reviews of

this TC have been very positive. Comes in 1.4x and 2x flavors.

<p>

I shot some images over the weekend with my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 zoom

with the Kenko 1.4x TC and without and I could not distinguish the

images. All were tack sharp, with excellent color and contrast.

<p>

There is a rumor afoot, by the way, that Canon's extension tubes are

rebadged Kenko tubes. Any truth to it?

I would not hesitate to get the grey market lens. Even though its true

that Nikon USA will not repair grey gear under warranty.

<p>

Camera bodies are far more complex than lenses, so there is a good

argument for buying Nikon USA imported bodies. But lenses aren't all

that complicated. I've not heard many people complaining about needing

to get lenses worked on.

<p>

Even it you do need repair, lots of people other than Nikon USA can

repair lenses, and probably for less money than Nikon USA would

charge.

<p>

As to the basic facts, Nikkor lenses of any given model, whether

imported by Nikon USA or by a parallel importer (like B&H), are

identical. They come off the same assembly lines and meet the same

standards of quality control.

You plan to shoot slides -- get the 28-105. There is almost uniform

agreement that the 28-105 is an exceptionally sharp and contrasty lens

with a very useful close focusing range. The 28-200 is ok for 4x5

snapshots but is soft for critical uses.

The search for an alternative to the Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 or the new

28-70 F/2.8 goes on.

<p>

I think the currently favored alternatives are the Tokina 28-70

f/2.6-2.8 or the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8.

<p>

Tokina has a new version of its lens coming out about now, with a

28-80 range at f/2.8. That's the one I'm waiting for.

<p>

So, i guess to answer your question directly, the Tokina or Sigma

alternatives to the Nikkor seems preferred right now to the Tamron.

<p>

But the Tamron 90 mm macro lens is a winner.

I'm going to recommend Kevin Adams, WILDFLOWERS OF THE SOUTHERN APPLACHIANS: HOW TO IDENTIFY AND PHOTOGRAPH THEM (1996).

This book obviously emphasizes the flowers of one region, but the discussion of technique is applicable anywhere.

There is careful discussion of technique, composition, backgrounds, technical challenges and the like.

What is special about this book is the attention to technique for each of over a hundred kinds of flowers. Issues of depth of field and other concerns are treated from the point of view of how to get optimum shots for each kind of flower.

Kirk and RRS plates are both well made and work great. Both

manufacturers have their fans and detractors.

<p>

Kirk has a wider line (tripods, heads, miscellaneous stuff), has a

significant website that is definitely worth a visit, and will take

your order by credit card.

<p>

Unless they've changed policy recently, RRS wants you to call or mail

in your order, and send a check. Some people find this charming;

others find it annoying. RRS also has a website, I think.

<p>

There are some differences in finish, and you may find that one or the

other will sell you a plate custom made for a specific body while the

other will sell you a more generic plate. Not sure this really

matters.

<p>

The one substantive difference, however. RRS adds a small screw to the

end of its plates to prevent the plate slipping out of the tripod head

if you don't get it fully tight. This can be helpful on occasion.

<p>

This feature determines the sale for some folks.

<p>

you can't go wrong with either shop. I have plates from both places

and can't tell any practical difference in function.

This shadow is a normal feature of F4 bodies. You are seeing part

of the bracket that holds the mirror. Relax and enjoy a great

camera.

<p>

I'm confused by Diego K's remark about"poor focusing capacity,"

however. I focus mine wonderfully every time I use it. When I focus it

manually it has the full capacity to focus accurately every time -- it

even helps me out by guiding my focusing with the electronic range

finder.

<p>

When I put it on AF, it has the capacity to focus quickly and

accurately on its own. It may not have quite the AF speed of an F5,

and I may have to help it out every once in while by tilting the body

slightly to help it get a grip on the subject, but these are minor

inconveniences. Me and my F4, we get along great.

<p>

Anyone who has problems with the focusing capacity of the F4 either

wants to photograph fast moving objects the point-and-shoot way or is

looking for an excuse to spend a lot more money on a pro-grade Nikon.

<p>

Which is fine -- keeps those Nikon engineers busy coming up with new

toys.

<p>

For more info on the F4, check out the F4 FAQ at

<p>

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/j/jnweg/html

<p>

Best,

<p>

NikonJohn

Depends on how you want to market your gear.

If you want to market it yourself, you can offer it

1. on ebay. Everything sells on ebay.

2. through photo.net classifieds

3. through rec.photo.marketplace

4. on your own website. Charles Campbell sold a bunch of stuff on his website when he switched from Nikon to Canon

5. Or, you can work up a list of the items and send it to those of us who might be interested, and we could put in bids.

Here, market forces will work to determine price for you.

Or, you can sell your gear to a used dealer like KEH or Dels or Charlotte Camera.

For price range suggestions:

1. Look in the SHUTTERBUG ads. My local used gear shop bases its sales prices on Le Camera prices, which are higher than some but not as high as Dels or KEH.

2. Look at the KEH website. They will buy your gear from you and have an on-line value estimator.

3. Figure based on the new cost.

By the way, John, I enjoyed your nature photo workshop a couple of years ago in Greensboro, NC. When are you headed this way again?

Best,

John Wall

Try to go for the Nikkor 80-200 f 2.8 with the tripod mount. These are

widely available used at a good price, since the folks who have to

have the latest toys are trading up to the AF-S.

<p>

But if you can't, I have read strong reviews of the latest Tokina and

Sigma models of this lens. Both also have new teleconverters that

folks have liked -- the new Kenko pro models and the new Sigma models

-- that preserve AF as well as give good performance with either the

Nikkor or the Tokina/Sigma lenses.

<p>

I'd be tempted by the Sigma, which is supposed to be very fine

optically. The Tokina is supposed to be superb optically too, but I

find Tokina's MF/AF switching awkward -- IF its the same on the 80-200

as it is on their 20-35 f 2.8 lens.

<p>

One issue is the difference in price between a clean but used Nikkor

and a new Tokina or Sigma.

<p>

The Nikkor 70-210 f 4 is also a great lens, and you ought to be able

to get a clean one for about $250 if you are patient. It is sharper

than the variable aperture 70-210. Some say its as sharp as the 80-200

f 2.8 over their common range. I'd say its very close but not

identical.

<p>

The 70-210 AF's a bit slower on the F4 than the 80-200 does, but at

the price differential that might not matter to you. I find that the

F4's AF system works better with wider aperture lenses. The 70-210

also takes 62 mm filters, which means you don't have to pay for the

extra cost of 77 mm filters, which runs up, especially when you look

at Nikon's 77 mm circular polarizer.

<p>

There are no ideal solutions -- all inolve trade-offs -- but there are

some great lenses out there in this range.

Scott --

Email me at john_wall@ncsu.edu

I know several people. I might be able to help.

Best,

John

If you are gonna get the 80-200, you are in for a treat because its a

great lens.

<p>

There IS a reasonably priced alternative to the 80-200, however. Look

for the older 70-210 f 4 AF lens. This is a constant aperture zoom,

very sharp (definitely sharper than the 70-210 variable aperture zoom

that Nikon brought out to replace it), light, and only one stop slower

than the 80-200.

Check out HArker's Island where there is a thriving wood boat building industry. The local Raleigh paper ran a story about it recently with great photos.

If you want to really get out on the water, there is a ferry nearby that goes out to Ocracoke Island.

For more inland waters, there is a ferry at Cherry Point nearby that crosses the Neuse River to Minnesott Beach. THe river is 5 miles wide at that point and there are lots of birds and shore views. IF yuou go that way, check out Oriental. It is a small town with a great harbor -- lots of fishing and pleasure boats, and a sailing center for the region, on the Intercoastal Waterway.

While you are in that area, you can see the real Dawson's Creek, which is the original for the popular teen-age TV show. The creator of that show is from Oriental.

But hope Hurricane Dennis misses you.

Canon is clearly in the process of upgrading its EOS bodies.

<p>

The EOS 3 and the new versions of the Rebel bodies are the first wave.

New models of the Elan and the 1n are surely about to be released in

the relatively near future.

<p>

how near? Should you buy now or wait? Certainly the Elan that is about

to come out will be better than the new Rebel -- heavier duty, more

flexible, with who knows what new features -- but is yesterday's Elan

better than today's Rebel?

<p>

Only you can make that call.

Nikon has just started introducing AF-S lenses, so my guess is that we

should expect to see more and more of them.

<p>

They cost more than Canon because they are new (the price will

eventually come down some), and because Nikon is Nikon and charges

much money for anything with the word Nikon on it.

<p>

My guess is also that Canon has more flexibility in pricing because

they have the big copier business providing cash flow.

Try Kirk Enterprises.

<p>

Or you may have found a market niche you want to exploit for yourself.

<p>

The process that produces these plates can't be too exotic or

expensive, and the materials aren't either.

Your results are similar to the results of a similar test

reported in the current issue of Pop Photo (oh no, something of value

in Pop Photo -- what is the world coming to?)

<p>

They also reflect results Bob Atkins obtained using Canon gear (I

think) a year or so ago.

<p>

These results confirm the importance of MLU for sharpness when the

camera is used in the shutter speed range 1/30-1/15 and thereabouts.

<p>

I think the F100 is a beautiful camera, and if I were shooting mainly

hand-held photos, I'd love to have one. But because I shoot mostly

from a tripod, I'm sticking with my F4 (at least until the F6 comes

out).

<p>

I wonder why Nikon left even pseudo-MLU off the F100. Seems a shame.

<p>

Enjoy your F5.

You don't have your gear from Smile Photo yet.

When you get it, let us know about the experience.

Smile Photo is grouped by many with Abe's and others better referred to by the word you get if you reverse the places of the second and fourth letters in the name of the place.

My impression is that Canon USA honors international Canon warrantees

(unlike Nikon which doesn't).

<p>

But Canon owners on this list will have the answer to a question that

has been around before on various lists.

The EOS 1n is Canon's top-of-the-line model and the F100 is Nikon's

next-to-the-top-of-the-line model, behind the F5.

<p>

So the 1n has some features that the F100 doesn't, especially 100%

viewfinder and mirror lock up. The 1n may be a bit more durable.

<p>

(I'm a Nikon shooter, so how's that for being fair?)

<p>

The F100 has going for it the high eyepoint viewfinder, in fact one of

Nikon's best, and vertical as well as horizontal focusing spots. It

has newer AF technology and may be a touch faster.

<p>

But the major factor is, which one is going to make you want to go out

and take pictures? That is going to be a factor of "feel" -- which

body feels best in your hands and easiest and most natural to use.

<p>

So there is no substitute for giving 'em both a serious try. Rent or

borrow if possible a sample of each and shoot a roll or two of film of

the kinds of subjects you like to shoot with each.

<p>

Then you'll know.

If you are investing in learning photography and want a body for not

much more than where you are now that will grow with you, then I

suggest finding a clean used 8008s.

<p>

The 8008s has a bit slower AF than the N90s (whihc replaced the

8008s) but still is as fast or faster than the N50/6006 bodies. It has

DOF preview and multiple exposure built into the body.

<p>

It is a classic Nikon AF body, one that will stand you in good stead,

doing whatever you need while you learn photography and develop your

collection of AF lenses.

Dave --

<p>

If Canon had persisted in offering high eyepoint viewfinders, I'd

probably be a Canon shooter today. I can't imagine how pro shooters

like George Lepp who use Canon and wear glasses can stand to use Canon

gear. The EOS 1n is if anything worse than the A2e in this regard.

<p>

And the new Nikon F100 is probably the best Nikon viewfinder yet.

High eyepoint? Go to your local camera shop and pick up a Canon A2 or

EOS 1n. Look through the viewfinder and notice if you can see the

entire image at one time -- do you need to move your head to see the

edges or corners? Then notice whether you can see the image and the

data that the camera displays in the viewfinder at the same time.

<p>

Then look through a Nikon F5 or F100 or N90 or N70. You will see the

difference immediately. That additional eye relief and the ability to

see everything -- including the shooting data and the complete image

at the same time -- simply by moving my eye around the viewfinder

without having to move my head as well is that Nikon calls high

eyepoint.

<p>

When I look through a Canon viewfinder with my glasses on, I cannot

see all four edges and corners of the image at the same time. I have

to move my head to move my eye to see everything. I can't see the

shooting data being displayed either without moving my head and my

eye.

<p>

I find this very annoying and distracting. Its one of the major

reasons I use Nikon.

<p>

Minolta has good eye relief too. Not as good as Nikon -- to my eye --

but much better than Canon.