yellowwoodguiding

<p>I'd add my votes on the pile for the 16-85VR and the 70-300mm VR. I took both those lenses and a 200-400mm f4 to India, with a D300 and D3 body combo.<br>

The 16-85 is amazing for the price and only really looses out in noticeable sharpness and contrast to pro Nikons triple the price.<br>

Below is the link to my Photo.net India gallery; every landscape and the Taj shots were with those 2 lenses listed above. The tigers got the heavy duty 200-400. <br>

<a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1026328">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1026328</a></p>

 

<p>It sounds like your auto focus is working but when your shooting macro auto focus is very touchy and unreliable. If your shooting from a tripod you'll find manual focusing is much easier and faster most of the time and you will get exactly what you want in focus. <br>

To add on top of that, the D7000 has great live view access so get into live view, magnify and super fine tune your focus manually and you'll get some great results.</p>

<p>Robert,<br>

I have a D300 so it has almost the same noise characteristics as your D90. I often draw the line at 800 ISO, or 1250 if I have an amazingly clean background. Prior to Lightoom 3 I never liked anything over ISO 500.<br>

Step one is you need a stable platform, shots have to be razor sharp to start with. I shot from a tripod about 95% of the time. Then you need to make sure you nail the exposure as close to perfect as possible and shot in raw. Learn your histogram, love your histogram. The less you need to edit in post the better your end result. Try to not crop anything as it doesn't look good at all.<br>

Then it comes down to some post work, in lightroom I'll run some light noise reduction then sharpen. Lightroom's 3 noise reduction is good but you have to be gentle. I'll do the saturation, clarity, vibrance (same stuff as ACR) then I'll take it into photoshop. Once there I use Nik's Tonal Contrast (that really adds a ton of sharp punch without much noise if your gentle) and remove the affect from the background. If it needs a round of noise reduction I'll run Nik Define and tell it to just reduce the background elements. You could also make a selection of the background and run noise software on just that.<br>

In the link is an image of a snowshoe hare I shot at ISO 1000, did what I described above, but before the last noise reduction run also ran onOne's FocalPoint plugin to blur the background sticks even more. I shot with a 150 2.8 with 1.4 tele, so basically at f4. The trick I think in getting this shot nice was the distance. I was only about 15 feet away and there is no crop. For far shots there is nothing you can do to fix the noise.<br>

<a href="../photo/12676432&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/12676432&size=lg</a></p>

 

<p>As other posters have noted HDR is a post processing option. One of a few techniques we can use to control images with dynamic range beyond what your camera can record. As a photographer you need to come up with a solution that will work for your subjects when you have too much dynamic range (simply put, brights too bright next darks too dark) <br>

HDR like any art form has styles, many folks go too surrealistic, but you can make it look real. To me the best HDR are images you can't tell have been produced with HDR.<br>

As a nature photographer I use a combination of HDR, Graduated Neutral Density filters, and dual image masking to get a shot that looks natural. Each option is in my tool bag to allow me to create the shot I want given the light and weather conditions. Here in the Rockies HDR fails when the trees and grass blown in the wind. Today wind speeds were 20-50mph, so during those situation I used graduated filters.</p>

<p>If your going the manual focus route which the 500 P is a great lens for that solution. I currently have the 200-400, 500, and 600 Vr's, and if I could have only one it would be the 500. I can add the TC if needed, and its not hard to back off a bit. 400 is generally never enough reach when it comes to wildlife unless your talking roadside big game. Then 400 is just as often too much, then seconds later not enough. But once you get away from roads 400 isn't enough.<br>

Unless your using the manual tele's on D3 or the like kind of view finder I would recommend getting a custom Katz Eye view screen. I got a matte finish no prism and it greatly improved my shot sharpness compared to the stock screen. The prism will not work well, tried it, not enough light especially with TC's.<br>

The upside of the 500 P is it holds its value very well, so you can fork out for that, then save and jump to an AFS model. Once you use the P, AFS will rock your world. They are crazy sharp.<br>

Also like said above, get a gimbal and a tripod that can definitely hold the weight well. Once you own a big tele you'll be amazed at how many shots you can really get. Generally photography is not really about the equipment but a monster lens really does improve your results. Probably out of guilt for the cost :)</p>

<p>I would say get yourself photoshop elements 7 or 8, or Lightroom, and download Nikon View for free for a image browser if you don't go the Lightroom route. If your doing mostly wildlife stuff photoshop's cloning may be used much more. The cloning tool in lightroom is good for basic fixes but more detailed clones like sticks and grass common in wildlife need a bit more control that photoshop offers.<br>

Next you most definitely want to shot in Raw. It gives you about a stop worth of error to make corrections where jpeg seems to be about a half a stop before you start getting a lot of noise.<br>

The next thing you want to do is go into your menu under the pencil icon, under exposure and turn on easy exposure compensation, that will make adjusting exposure quicker by just adjusted the back horizontal thumb wheel after a shutter depression. Then set your camera to either Aperture priority or Program. <br>

When it comes to metering you have two viable options, spot/center weight metering if you really understand exposure, tones, and those adjustments. Or matrix meter, taking a test shot and check your histogram. The problem with the spot option is you have to be really aware of where that spot is. For many folks that don't practice multiple times a week find its a hard skill to keep refined in the heat of the action of wildlife.<br>

I would suggest matrix, always take a quick test shot, and then really learn how to read your histogram. Also you can quickly check for blinkies. Looking at Shun's post the right spike of the histogram (which is the white of your merganser) should be roughly in the middle of the 4th column of your D90 histogram out in the field. So take a look at that test shot and adjust quick. I find in nearly all conditions you have to make a small adjustment of a 3rd of a stop or so brighter or darker to get the exposures just right.<br>

Once you get that shot out of the camera properly exposured you can fine tune the exposure a bit in Adobe Camera Raw/Lightroom. Many folks in the wildlife world will then go in and adjust the contrast with more precision, I'm finding Tonal Contrast in Nik Software's Color Efex Lightroom plugin really makes a great impact on images and reduces a lot of the flattness of poor light.<br>

As a photo instructor I've put together a whole list of videos that you may want to watch including reading your histogram. They are all free, anyone is welcome to watch: <a href="http://www.ywguiding.com/photo_training_instructional_videos.html">http://www.ywguiding.com/photo_training_instructional_videos.html</a></p>

<p>Expanding on what Elliot mentioned, AF-C or AF-S is the setting to use if you want accurate focus. In my experience AF-A is really bland in quality unless your subject has really high contrast. For grand landscapes its pathetic for high quality results.</p>

<p>From my experience with using AF-A, the camera takes a hint from your aperture and mode settings, then goes for the contrasty areas and focuses what catches its eye.</p>

<p>Higher end cameras don't have AF-A, and its definitely not trying to use Hyperfocal.</p>

<p>As a teacher of photography I always tell my students, "cameras are dumb and you are smart." Let the camera handle the few things they are roughly good at, but don't let it handle things its not great at like determining focus, and nailing every exposure. Nikon's are wonderfully engineered to move that focus point with your thumb and you can get amazing results all the time. You got 36 more focus points over your D40, you can finally focus exactly where you want.</p>

<p>The PC-e lenses have an electro-magnetic aperture control, thats what the "e" stands for. So your only hope is to find some kind of adapter ring that simulates the connection of a D300/700/D3 camera. <br>

I'm not familiar enough with a Sony mount but I would bet it would be a really tough project to try to put contacts on the adapter yourself.</p>

<p>Tony,<br>

One thing you may want to consider is getting a katzeye without a prism.<br>

I bought one for my D200 when I was shooting with a manual 500 f4. The prisms I tried just didn't work, I contacted Katzeye and I sent back the screen and got the custom one with brightening without a prism for almost no additional cost. Great service, and the results was a very large improvement in view finder sharpness.</p>

<p>I'm with Kent here, don't even try putting a TC on the 70-300.<br>

I have gone the route of the TC on one and was never happy with the results. Your best bet to is save up and get what you describe. Save your money, don't be afraid of good used stuff. But in the meantime work on your technique and getting closer.<br>

TC's always degrade, I personally have a 300 f4, 500 f4, and a 150 f2.8. When I need extra reach I use the a 1.4tc-e and a 1.7tc-e.<br>

The 2x has a bad rep for reducing the image quality, but most importantly even on an f4 the 2x won't perform well with good AF.</p>

<p>I do a bit of both, the cir. pol. filter is a must, for landscape I have yet to see photoshop do a better job than my singh-ray GND filters. Beyond those 2 I don't carry any other filters.<br>

As a photo instructor I find that people seeing it in the camera allows the learning process it to sink in much easier. Yes much can be done with digital filters, but I always find shots that I can't fix in Raw, or I forget to take alternate exposures, or the conditions have changed too fast to take multiple exposures, but if I used the right filter in the field I would have a real wall hanger.</p>

I am venturing into trying to make a profit with photography and the only possible weak link in my lens setup is for

landscapes. I use a Nikon 24-85 f2.8 - f4 on a D300 and I sometimes wish I could go a bit wider, but much more

often I'm in the 35 - 60mm 35mm equiv length of the lens for my mountain photography. The CA and Distortion of the

24-85 doesn't bother me.

 

I always shot from a tripod, and with a release, have cokin P singh-ray filters, and weight is a huge matter to me. The

24-85 is 1.2 lbs. The 17-55 is 2 lbs.

 

So my question would be knowing my situation and requirements I want to upgrade my lens to maximize sharpness

and better color rendition / Contrast, and since this is for profit the improvement over the 24-85 should be much much

better.

 

I've started to look at the 17-55, 16-85, and maybe Sigma's options. What lens should I consider?

I would add another vote for the Full Wimberly. Their products are machined perfectly and have great service. If you can find a used Wimberly its the way to go if price is a huge concern. Also mounting the lens foot down opposed to foot up reduces a lot of potential error of dropping a lovely tele-monster.

 

Also twice my Wimberly foot stop pegs have saved my lens from a sudden meeting with mother earth. The lower foot helps but I don't think is a must have but it does help cut weight by a few ounces.

 

In playing with the Manfrotto 3421 it wasn't nearly as smooth as my Wimberly.

 

Lastly get the model 2 Wimberley head to cut down that extra pound. On a Carbon Fiber tripod that old Wimberly plus camera is kind of top heavy when its on your shoulder. Hence why I plan on selling my model 1 for a model 2.

Shay,

 

As a profesional naturalist I would agree with your bird explanation. One thing to note is there is no wing beat pattern in the blur so I would assume either these birds were a good distance away or are smaller birds like a flock of blackbirds or starlings etc that are a mid range (further than the tree at the bottom) away from the lens. Your average song bird flies about 30 - 35 miles per hour. So even if they are smaller birds they would travel about 3.3 ft/sec across the frame.

My tab broke off during a camera fall after a year of very carefully working the batteries. I found hotgluing a small sheet of plastic on the door helps push the batteries in to place and it works fine. I was going to be charged almost $100 for the out of warranty repair.

 

I did use it below freezing on a very regular basis without issue. Concrete was a different matter.

3 months ago My D200 hit the parking lot really hard with a long lens mounted.

The camera mount bent and the camera gives an Fee error when I put on any lens.

The lens was unharmed.

 

After finding out I got con'ed with a Grey Market camera when I ordered a US

model I finally sent the camera in for repair at a local repair shop. They

replaced the mount and said they examined the camera, and checked operation. I

was charged $45 for the mount and $295 for labor.

 

It arrived back to me this week, I mounted my Sigma Macro lens with the new

style mount without an Apeture ring and the camera works. The problem is all

the rest of my older lens with apeture rings still read an Fee error. Now that

I know its not the bent mount, on older lens there is a black tab that controls

the apeture, when this is rotated and engaged as I mount the lens I get the

Fee. If I click the lens release and rotate the lens a half a degree back the

camera will read it like it was an AI lens.

 

My question is two fold, has anyone had an issue similar and what was the

repair?

 

Second, how should I handle the repair shop that charged me for a simple mount

replacement and still didn't fix my camera. I would think a seasoned repair

shop would have tried more than one lens on the camera to check the repair.

I'm with Douglas, as a professional naturalist I need to document what I see so I can share it with my clients (mostly schools and vacationers to Rocky Mountain National Park). Within the last two years I go out looking for different shots. Sometimes I want to document what I see, and other times I look for art. Even though my shots don't end up on walls or on paper I sell my photography nearly every weekend.

 

On a personal note its just plain fun, the only time I get giddy for landscape is during perfect morning light, but when there is a bird, or mammal in the viewfinder its like a legal high every single time. And in the long run 10k in gear is probably cheaper than a crack addiction.

David,

 

I shot with the 170-500 for a few years and suffered the same thing. Images were always soft and after reviewing all my shots, everything under about 350mm were very sharp. Everything over that were soft.

 

I went so far as buying a long lens brace from Bogen because I thought there was vibration due the poorly designed tripod collar. The lens is very unstable when zoomed out to 500mm. However bracing did not help with the softness.

 

Using the same tripod and technique but with a 500mm f4 P all the softness is gone. After many gear upgrades, I put the 170-500 onto an Acra-swiss ball head, and Gitzo 1410 tripod to reduce all the vibration possible and time and again shots were still soft.

 

You may want to consider the Sigma 50-500mm which is still a bit slow but I know a wildlife pro who now shots everything with it. If you can go up in budget you may want to consider a prime and good tripod/head setup.

 

If you do upgrade the 170-500 fetches 300-400 used.

Adam,

 

#1, its better to have the right data in the image than the wrong image. Memory Cards are cheap, go crazy and bracket a whole lot. The PC is for fine tuning an image, but you can't fix a bad shot.

 

#2 I've notice the B&W mode allows you to meter for B&W, while shotting in color you meter for color then decide later "that might look good in black and white" only to realize you need a lighter or darker image.

 

#3 ISO with digital you can change with every shot. With Nikon dslr's iso 100-400 is best, higher iso's come down to personal preferences to how much noise you can put up with. I often increase my ISO as I shot through an evening to keep my shutter speeds up.

 

Good shooting

I currently shot with a 24-85 f2.8-4 with 1:2 macro on a D200, and always on a

tripod with lighting. I'm working on a wildflower field guide so I need great

shots and the 24-85 isn't producing what I want.

 

I want to go to 1:1, get more working distance for lighting and to get better

bokeh. That background with 3 or 4 other species needs to be as out of focus as

possible.

 

I've been looking at the Sigma 150 f2.8 and Tamron 180 f3.5 for this purpose. I

haven't see many reviews on either, does anyone have any comments. I'm leaning

toward the sigma since its faster, and the faster the better when shotting in

the rockies with all the wind. I also want a newer lens designed for digital as

CA is an issue with older lenses.

 

I will also want to go beyond 1:1 and carry TC's and extension tubes, how do

they do with those. Or is a diopter the better option?

Brian,

 

I'm not sure how Wolfe took the shot, but in a similar situation I would probably spot meter the dark brown mud, and use a polarizer and maybe a ND filter.

 

Keep in mind the camera can only see 5 f stops of constrat while the human eye can see 16 f stops. The best way to approach the shot is to decide what you want out of the shot, and eliminate the other side of the specturm. If you want to remove the highlights, use filters to darken the image and compress those ranges, and then spot meter on the subject thats not in shadow or highlights.

 

One last thing is time of day will also influence things a good bit, morning and evening light is far less contrasty usually.

Nick,

 

I used the same tripod and once I moved on to big glass I could see my tripod legs bending like a tree in the wind. I would also recommend going out and doing a test, but take a step or two away, and put your hand on the lens with some pressure and see if your legs bow at all.

 

I would suspect that tripod before the 1.7 TC and the 300 f4.

 

I would also look into what kind of plate your using on the head. It may not be rock solid and give you a very small amount of movement.

In my experience, I can get colors as saturated, if not much more saturated with my digitals.

 

True you have to do some post processing, but I feel this give me the option to highlight specific colors and make others more subtle.

 

I took this shot today with my aging Nikon D100. In photoshop I merely added 20 points to the master saturation.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6498637

One more thing to note, the camera will not list the f stop in the data so you will want to take notes or use test shots.

You may want to check on the photo merge setting that allows double exposures. I only tried that once or twice and I can't remember how the settings go, but what your first described is something similar to that option.