mats nilson photography

<p>I would much like to see an update on the Micro-Nikkor 200/4. It's not that the current one is any bad, really. It's just that since that's about the oldest lens of the bunch, it seems bound to be replaced. And since I'm in the market for one, I find myself in a kind of limbo not knowing what to do.. :) I can do without AF-S and VR, for sure, but nanocoating might come in handy. Also, I don't know how the current (steam driven) 200/4 behaves on digital. Some other old lenses that worked magic on film just aren't up to scratch on digital.</p>

<p>I own the latest 600/4 and use it a lot. It's nothing short of marvellous. But it is truly a beast to be carrying around and it is quite easy to get mediocre results unless you're meticulous with your technique, so owning the lens is not a guarantee to success. I'm saying this because it's all too easy to blame the lens if your results aren't up to scratch, but the lens itself is rarely the problem.</p>

<p>One thing to understand is this: when designing a consumer lens, there must be a trade-off between quality and cost, otherwise too few would buy them. When it comes to highly specialised lenses such as the super teles, those who truly need them will pay whatever they cost and therefore no compromises are made in their design. They're as good as Nikon is technically able to make them, with a price-tag to match.</p>

<p>I have no experience with the F4, but I found the F5 to be tough as a brick and in other ways generally a much better camera.</p>

<p>What camera body do you use? If digital - does this occur only with this particular lens, and not with any others? Sensor dust sounds like the obvious culprit, but then it would happen with all lenses or not at all, obviously, on a film camera.</p>

<p>You will most definitely want to download the <a href="http://stephentrainor.com/tools">TPE program</a> to your computer. It is free, and it will show you very clearly where the sun and moon rises and sets at any location you might be interested in. Just type 'Neuschwanstein' in the search box and you'll get a satellite view of the castle with the direction of sunrise and sunset overlaid. That program is simply a must-have for the travelling photographer!</p>

<p>Not having actually been there, I can deduce from the pictures I've seen, and from the satellite image, where that bridge must be, and it's due south from the castle, the façade of which faces east of south. So it seems the golden hours might give a back-lit castle.</p>

<p>I agree that a good photo is a good photo, regardless of how it was achieved. But I also aknowledge my audience's right to know whether it was taken under controlled circumstances or in the wild. But to me this is all rather academic. Instead, I think it's the wellfare of the subject that matters! If an animal is kept in a zoo for reasons of preserving a gene pool or something, then I can't see how photographing could hurt - if done sensibly. Likewise, an animal in a rehabilitation center may provide opportunities for close-ups that are simply not possible in the wild. But it's bad enough for a wild animal to be kept in captivity - even for its own good - not to harrass it by sticking a lens up its nose. Animal welfare first! Then there are those american wildlife farms specifically set up for photography, notably of large carnivores. Those I find utterly appalling and a disgrace to wildlife photography!</p>

<p>I think of wildlife photography in terms of 'fair trade'. I don't go out disturbing animals at their nests, since that disturbs them while only providing me with a photo opportunity. On the other hand, I might set up a hide someplace and bate animals to go there so that I can photograph them. Then they can choose to do so (or not) and get a food reward while I get my pictures. Photographing a bird singing on a fence post through my car window doesn't disturb it - or it'd fly away - so I consider that fair too.</p>

<p>Not including any man-made objects sounds downright silly, since that would exclude photographing all the animals that are specifically adapted to man-made habitats (e.g. farm land) and which would be taken out of context if not shown in their 'natural' habitat.</p>

<p>That's just the way it is. Why, I don't know, but there's nothing wrong. It almost freaked me out when I had just unpacked a brand new D2Xs and couldn't get any focus through the viewfinder. A frenetic flipping through the manual put me at ease - a charged battery even more! And yes, it's just the same with the D3, as you've observed.</p>

<p>One of my most highly valued accessories to the D3 is an ND filter!</p>

<p>By all means, buy the 300/2.8 if it's within financial reach. You'll have a decent 420/4 and 600/5.6 with the converters and will be able to cover all sorts of situations. On the other hand - a 400/5.6 is a delight to carry and is not a lens to be looked down upon. Particularly if you're new to this, you'll need to practice a lot, and that's so much more enjoyable if the equipment isn't too cumbersome. I have gone through most stages, eventually leading up to a 600/4, but I must admit that while it's a marvellous lens in most respects, I still find myself cursing it a lot for it's unwieldy monstrosity.</p>

<p>OK, sorry for a third post, but now I can tell what goes on - in Lightroom at least. Sorting by 'Added order' or 'Capture time' both yield a random sequence of images taken during the same second. Since downloading an image takes more than a second, 'Added order' will be unambigous, whereas 'Capture time' isn't. File name, however, is correct, and thus the buffer does indeed write on a fifo basis.</p>

<p>A follow-up question: Mike, if you sort your images by filename (provided that you haven't renamed them during download), are they still out of sequence? What if you sort by capture time?</p>

<p>My guess is that the software that reads the memory card reads the timestamp, and upon finding several images taken during the same second it grabs them randomly. Once in your image library, however, you should be able to sort them into the original sequence.</p>

<p>More or less the same has happened to me with my D3. And that has nothing to do with deleting files, coz there's no time to do that when shooting action. I was thinking maybe it had something to do with several images having the same timestamp when shooting at 11 fps. But now that I go back and look in Lightroom at an instance when I know this happened, everything seems to be back in order.. Utterly confusing.. It might be an issue only during downloading to the computer and to do with the order in which the software grabs the image files from the card?</p>

<p>Just a technical note: A digital sensor has one fixed light sensitivity. When we raise the ISO-setting, what we in effect do is underexpose. That's why higher ISOs are noisier, since we have to boost a weak signal to achieve 'correct' tonal values in the image file. Therefore, underexposing by -1.0EV or going from ISO 400 to 800 makes very little difference with regards to noice, if any at all. Only difference is whether the boosting takes place in-camera or in Lightroom/Photoshop/Aperture/whatever.. Clipping highlights (or shadows) is a different matter, for once you've saturated the photo-sites (or if they receive no light whatsoever), there are no tricks in the world to save them. That's why I thought you had chosen to underexpose (to save highlights from clipping).</p>

<p>I've looked at your image again and it's getting better every time.. :-) You have a very nice picture as it is - saying quite a bit about the elusivesness of the cat. And you still have the raw-material to make another version with the cat standing out a wee bit more - if you'd like.</p>

<p>I've been quite a bit to India, but I've never seen a leopard. I once had a very distinct feeling of being stalked by one on the outskirts of Bombay, and I'm glad I never saw that one since that could have been the last thing I ever saw.. ;-)</p>

<p>Not saying there aren't any others, those are the only two differences I am aware of myself. My only experience is with Mk II and that is a truly wonderful lens. A 500/4 is a preferred tele for anyone having to carry it for any distance, having the best focal length to weight ratio of the super-tele Nikkors. And thus the weight reduction can be a significant factor. Close focusing can be, too, if you manage to get that close to your subject.. :-)</p>

<p>Nice shot!</p>

<p>But if it were backlit, why did you dial in -1.0EV? I would have thought it more important to make the leopard stand out, than to save the bakground highlights from clipping. Still, I'd give a go at it in post-processing. Just my 2 cents..</p>

<p>And it's still a very nice shot of a notoriously elusive animal!</p>

<p>I rarely experience that kind of physical discomfort, even on a long trip. Except maybe from lack of sleep for trying to cover both dawn and dusk, and having difficulties sleeping in between. However, I very often find myself suffering from "photographer's fatigue". That is, finding it increasingly harder to find inspiration and the energy to push on after having photographed to my heart's content for several days in a row. That can really be mentally tireing, not to say frustrating. And if this should happen to you, take a day off. Alright, bring the camera along just in case, but don't go looking for scenery. Just relax, have an ice-cream, go to the zoo, whatever.. :-) Next day's results will improve! Paradoxically, this happens at home, too, and then the remedy is a Photo Trip! Noone ever said it's easy, but it sure ought to be fun!</p>

<p>Just another book recommendation: I find <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Macrophotography-Learning-Master-Ronan-Loaec/dp/0810991179/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239553720&sr=8-4">this</a> is the most comprehensive book on the subject.</p>

<p>Oh, and BTW, at these magnifications, focal length doesn't influence DOF as one would normally think - magnification alone does that. But what one can do is use a longer focal length and stop it down to achieve the desired DOF, but frame it so as to include a background that is in the far distance and therefore very much out of focus. For speed, use flash, like many have already suggested - even if it takes some practice to make it look convincing.</p>

<p>What you need to do is to move the flash away from the lens-axis. That way, when the flash-light enters the eye it doesn't bounce straight back causing 'red-eye', but is reflected downwards out of the eye (if your flash is above the lens). There are purpose-built brackets for this, for instance from <a href="http://reallyrightstuff.com/flash/index.html">Really Right Stuff</a> and <a href="http://www.tripodhead.com/products/flash-bracket-telephoto-brackets.cfm">Wimberley</a>.</p>

<p>I use <a href="http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jsp?id=0022194417295a&type=product&cmCat=SEARCH_all_NYR&returnPage=search-results1.jsp&Ntk=Products&sort=all&Go.y=0&_D%3AhasJS=+&Nty=1&hasJS=true&No=18&nyr=1&Ne=2510&Ntt=blind&N=4585&_D%3Asort=+&Go.x=0&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fsearch%2Fsearch-box.jsp.form1&_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1">Cabela's Lightning Set Hunting Blind</a> and I can just say it's downright fabulous! It's light, very portable, and sets up in a few seconds. Follow the link above, and watch their video (linked from that page). Don't go the cheap way and just throw some camo-cloth over you. Your every movement will be visible from the outside and that, obviously, will keep your subjects far away.</p>

<p>I don't know if they're still made, but there used to be a collapsible lens-shade made of rubber that you could fold back over your lens when not in use. Put one of those on your lens, and press it against the glass. That way, the light from your office will be blocked out and hence no reflections. Just pick a clean spot of window! :-) A polarizer won't be necessary and would anyway be of little help since I presume you will shoot straight out through the window. (I dare not use the word 'perpendicular' these days.. I might get a consultation..! :-) )</p>

<p>This <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS300_28_VR_rev.html">here</a> is a review you might find useful.</p>

<p>I used to work as a wilderness ranger in the Scandinavian mountains, clocking some 7000kms on snowmobile each winter in rather rough terrain (try tracking lynx from a snowmobile and you'll know what I mean..). I never dared put my camera in a box or under the saddle for fear of it vibrating to pieces, so I kept it in a rucksack on my - relatively - vibration-damped self. However, a colleague of mine always just slung his in the compartment under the saddle, along with the odd wrench and spare spark-plug, and - astonishingly - never had a problem!</p>

<p>I don't do mountain biking, but like most before me I'd suggest you carry the camera on your body, rather than somehow attached to the bike. Your legs and arms will absorb much of the vibration and your camera will be safe.</p>

<p>Just a note: do excercise your lenses regularly or the apertures may freeze up out of lack of use. I've had this happen on some old lenses that I rarely use.</p>

<p>In fact, since changing ISO doesn't alter the sensor's inherent characteristics in any way, you <em>effectively</em> underexpose by raising the ISO setting. <em><strong>But</strong></em> - the camera's image processing engine is built to deal with that kind of underexposure, trying to make the best out of it. After all, that's why it will let you dial in a higher ISO in the first place. However, if you deliberately underexpose at a given ISO setting, the camera will assume it's intentional and not do much about it.</p>

<p>Dunno, this may or may not be very helpful, but.. These days, I have more and better lenses than I could ever dream of having, but it hasn't always been so. The one time I've been fortunate enough to actually be on an African safari was long ago, and the best I could afford was a used Tokina AT-X 400/5.6. Not what one would consider a great lens by any standards, but hey! it was 400mm and it was mine! And you know what? I came home with quite a few really nice photos! I think it's good that you've come to terms with your financial limits, ruling out lenses that are just out of the question. Then, hopefully, you can enjoy using whatever you manage to bring, rather than feeling miserable about it, like much too many do. You're going on safari! Wow! Lucky you! :-)</p>

<p>More to the point, regarding your question: I once went to the Canadian Rockies and was kindly allowed to borrow the then new 80-400 zoom. Yes, it was somewhat cumbersome, but I never felt any of that since I was too busy photographing all sorts of wildlife, having tons of fun. And yes, it focused sluggishly, which didn't stop me from taking pin-sharp photos of birds in flight. I think it's a great enough lens. It's portable, reasonably affordable, and with a long reach. I think you'd feel rather limited with just 200mm.</p>

<p>Here are just two examples - an Impala photographed in Botswana using the lowly Tokina, and two Columbian Ground Squirrels in Jasper, taken with the 80-400:<br>

<img src="http://www.matsnilson.com/Impala.jpg" alt="" /><img src="http://www.matsnilson.com/Groundsquirrels.jpg" alt="" /></p>