mats nilson photography

<p>I think more and more cameras will feature built-in GPS. It doesn't consume all that much energy, the circuits are relatively cheap and don't take up much space.</p>

<p>I also think geotagging has its uses for both casual and professional photography. For the professional photographer (working outdoors) it's so easy to provide just in case a client wants it that there's really no reason not to. And, like I said, it can be helpful for organising ones image-bank. Applications such as Panoramio probably cater more to the casual (travelling) photographer and is one on-line community among others, but with a special focus on geography.</p>

<p>Panoramio is easy to use and when I come home from a trip I upload a couple of images that I think may be worthwhile for others to look at. (And in case ones images don't have GPS-data in their EXIF-headers, they can be geotagged manually in Panoramio) Obviously, these are images actually saying something about the place they were taken. And the thing is, these images go through a selection process at <a href="http://earth.google.com/">Google Earth</a>, and if they're found to be of value, they're included as a Panoramio 'dot' in a layer in Google Earth. That way, anyone exploring GE can click on that dot to get a ground-view of what a place looks like, to complement the satellite image. Pretty neat!</p>

<p>Oh, and by the way, Matt, <a href="http://www.panoramio.com/photo/8999447">this</a> is a place I suppose you're familiar with! :-) Fabulous place!</p>

<p>Yes, well, it's <em>sort of</em> 360 degrees. To get a true 360 degree panorama, one needs to stitch the ends too, to make a 'cylinder', and then cut it up. As far as I'm aware, Photoshop can't do that, and that's what this panorama was stitched in. I later got the <a href="http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=11390049&siteID=123112">Autodesk Stitcher</a> but unfortunately I haven't had time to try it out a lot. It takes some getting used to, I think, but it can do some amazing things. For instance, unlike PS, it can stitch fish-eye images. It can also output panoramas in all sorts of formats, including QTVR-videos that you can pan around in on-screen, like a virtual tour.</p><p>360 panoramas are a bit confusing to look at, don't you think? In my image, one can look up and down the slope at the same time and it takes some time to realise what is what. (The net-fencing on both sides is one and the same, for instance) It was a really lovely day, so most people were just sitting around sun-bathing. But I wanted a panorama with skiers in, so to be honest, I took multiple images of each frame for the panorama and combined them to make it seem like there were more skiers than there actually were.. Shame on me.. :-)</p>

<p>There are CF cards and there are CF cards.. I wouldn't trust my images to the 'bargain' ones. I've used Sandisk Extreme IV 4GB cards for 2,5 years, shooting thousands of images and reformatting them in-camera after each shoot was safely transferred to backed-up hard disks. I've used them in D2Xs and D3 without ever experiencing any trouble whatsoever.</p>

<p>Hey! If the 600 was a gift (life is so unfair), you <b>really</b> should be able to afford at least a proper support! :-)</p>

<p>I had to pay for my 600, but knew that was just part of the investment, since it simply demands good support. So I got a Gitzo GT5530S and a Wimberley II, plus lens plate, which together came to the equivalent of USD 1.700. I know, it hurt, but unsharp photos hurt even more.. ;-)</p>

<p>Yes, the problem is indeed the flash-sync. If left to its own devices it will force the shutter-speed to be far too slow for the ambient light at f/2.8. I bet it says <i><b>HI</b></i> in your viewfinder where the shutter-speed reading should be, indicating over-exposure. But fear not, with a D2X and an SB800, FP-high-speed sync works beautifully. It does consume more battery, though, since the strobe needs to flicker for the duration of the exposure. ND-filter would work too, but you already have all it takes. The decision between the two is one between high or slow shutter-speed, really. (Also, the ND-filter cuts the light from the flash as well, so you'll get shorter reach and high battery consumption as the flash tries to compensate. But that may or may not be equal to the FP solution.)</p>

<p>Nice work! </p>

<p>I find the 14-24/2.8 very useful for panoramas, indeed. One may even include the sun in the picture without too much flare (and if there is some in one frame, one can often adjust the blending mask to include some flare-free sky from another frame instead.)</p>

<p>I attach one of several panoramas I made in our local ski-slope. It's not all that good, but it's 360 degrees made out of some 20+ vertical images. Since it's a wide panorama, it will most likely show up as a link, but..</p><div></div>

<p>The diGPS does not have a separate (protruding) antenna and it is powered by the camera. Just to put that straight.</p>

<p>I have a diGPS constantly attached to my Nikon D3. I always geotag my images since it doesn't require any extra attention from me. Of course, sometimes I'm indoors and sometimes the action happens too fast for the GPS to acquire a signal, and then I obviously won't get any GPS data. The only time I actively switch it off is when I photograph endangered species at their nest.</p>

<p>Among a lot else, I do travel and aerial photography and there the GPS is invaluable. Particularly in aerial landscape photography where it saves hours of research trying to find out where the h*** a particular photograph was taken.</p>

<p>Admittedly, though, very few ever ask for that data. It's more for my own use and it's also an aid in correctly assigning more common metadata in plain text. From within Lightroom, Google Maps is a mouse-click away and there I can find which English county/Indian state/Norwegian fylke (or whatever) a particular image was taken in.</p>

<p>I also share some of my images with the <a href="http://www.panoramio.com/user/184371">Panoramio</a> community which I also find useful for pre-trip planning.</p>

<p>I don't think I'd be bothered with geotagging manually in post-process, but since it all happens without my doing anything active about it, I find it very useful and not something I would want to be without. I agree, though, that a built-in GPS would be even better.</p>

<p>Photoshop and the like are OK, if somewhat limited. If you want <em>the best</em> and don't mind paying for it, there's the <a href="http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=11390049&siteID=123112">Autodesk Stitcher </a>(previously known as RealViz Stitcher) that is a bit complicated to use, but can output all sorts of panoramas, including spherical ones and QTVR-movies, as well as huge multi-row panoramas in whatever projection you'd like. I got it myself a while ago, but the project for which it was needed was scrapped, so I haven't had time to use it.</p>

<p>Whether you should buy a camera or not in the UK is one thing, but the definite destination for anyone with a Nikon heart on a visit to London is <a href="http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/">Grays of Westminster</a>. It's quite an experience! :-)</p>

<p>There's <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00SYuP">this recent thread</a> in the Nikon forum which contains a few links to manufacturers of just that kind of equipment.</p>

<p>I'm sure there are even more out there, but here are at least two more: the <a href="http://www.phototrap.com/">Phototrap</a> and the <a href="http://www.woodselec.com/">Shutterbeam</a>. The Time Machine I mentioned earlier is very versatile and has lots of uses, apart from trip-beam photography, and there are a multitude of different sensors you can attach to it - among them a PIR sensor like the one you were thinking of converting.</p>

<p>I have no affiliation with them at all, so I'm not cunningly trying to advertise anything, but you really should try <a href="http://www.photoniccleaning.com/">First Contact</a>, expensive though it is. I actually haven't tried it myself, but it seems to be identical to a product by the name of Opticlean which I've been using for many years, but which seems to be discontinued. While it does contain ethanol as well as acetone and some other organic solvent, it's harmless to glass and coatings - but obviously extremely harmful for plastics! It works by dissolving any soluble stuff, (such as the grease from finger prints) and incorporating that along with any solid particles (such as dust and sand) into a polymer. Once it has cured, it can be lifted off, leaving an absolutely pristine surface. Best of all: you don't wipe anything over the surface, meaning that you don't grind those grains of sand into the optical surface, like you do with a cloth. Sounds scary, but I've never tried anything remotely as effective and never had the least bit of a problem.</p>

<p>I read between the lines that you would like a DIY solution, either for the fun of it or to cut down on costs. I made some simple devices ages ago, but they never came out any good. In the end I got the <a href="http://www.bmumford.com/photo/camctlr.html">Time Machine</a>, but there are several other commercially available options, e.g. the <a href="http://www.trailmaster.com/">Trail Master</a>. But if you're better at electronics than I am (and most people are) please have a go at it! :-)</p>

<p>BTW, if I were you, I'd post a thread on the Nature forum where people might know a thing or two about these things. It isn't really a Nikon thing only.</p>

<p>I once bought an AF-S 500/4 IF ED II from Gray's of Westminster in London and had them send it to me in Swedish Lapland where it arrived in one piece. Whether that was down to luck I don't know..</p>

<p>From what I've read and heard, a 2x converter is rarely as good as a 1.4x, IQ-wise. And there's the 1.7x, too, which I hear is as good in that respect as the 1.4x.</p>

<p>I've used the TC14eII on an AF-S 5oo/4 ED II (that's the model before the VR) and it worked beautifully. Very minor degradation of IQ, if any. (Just beacuse I couldn't notice it doesn't mean there wasn't any at all, but it certainly didn't bother me.)</p>

<p>If weight is a consideration at all, I'd go for the 500 if I were you. With the 1.7x, you'd get an 850/6.3 (or so) and that would still retain a serviceable AF in decent light.</p>

<p>The following is how I do, but this is not a recommendation as such, in case anyone manages to ruin their sensor and tries to blame me. Not that I have had any problems whatsoever. Anyway, here goes:</p>

<p>I find I need to clean my D3 sensor every other week or so, when dust spots begin to appear in my images. Having a clean sensor in the first place is much preferable to spending hours on end doing digital dust spotting on the computer. First, I take a blower to remove any loose dust, while holding the camera up-side down. I then spin the Arctic Butterfly and brush it ever so gently over the sensor in two passes (spinning it between passes). Since the spinning builds up static in the brush, which attracts the dust particles, the brush should only touch the sensor surface very very lightly. It's not meant to dislodge dust by forcing them loose with the brush. This is all I ever do, but I do it as often as needed. I have never found the need for wet swabs. Obviously, the sensor brush should never be used to clean anything else, in which case it would be bound to be contaminated.</p>

<p>For the cleaning of lenses and filters, there's absolutely nothing to beat <a href="http://www.photoniccleaning.com/">First Contact</a>, even if it's rather expensive. There used to be a similar thing called Opticlean by British Caliope, but I belive it's no longer available. I still have a supply of Opticlean, so I haven't tried First Contact myself, but it works along the same principles and should work wonders with any optics. Instead of smearing and rubbing around whatever thumb-prints, grease and grit there is on the lens, it lifts it off, leaving a pristine surface. Feels scary to use at first, but I have never come across anything remotely as effective.</p>

<p>I have that exact setup and it works just fine. I'm not always thrilled with the RAW-conversion, but the beta-profiles available at <a href="http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles">Adobe Labs</a> (for LR2) make things at least a wee bit better, if not perfect. But I somehow guess you have a bigger problem than that..</p>

<p>If you're in the studio and are, say, trying to compose a fairly tight group shot that you know will be printed in a 4x5 format, it helps telling where your boundaries are. Of course, the view-finder mask would be sufficient, saving the crop for post-processing, but as it is, I find the mask, at least, can be helpful. A portrait composed in a 2x3 format cannot always be successfully cropped into 4x5.</p>

<p>Nikon does have a 24-120 VR (to match the Canon you mention) if you feel the range would suit you. Otherwise, I don't feel the 70-200 is particularly heavy. On a D3 it balances very well and gives the whole rig a desirable heft that makes for steady hand-holding. It may feel a bit front-heavy on a lighter body, though. I travel a lot and always bring the 70-200, particularly for hand-held shooting. It does feel heavy when carried with a D3 in a strap around the neck, however, which is why I mostly carry it in my hand. And - just for the record - I've never even been close to a gym and couldn't with the best of will be considered 'strong'. :-)</p>

<p>Actually, there <em>are</em> differences between the way film and a digital sensor react to light. Among them their abilities to record light rays coming in at a slant. The digital sensor, as far as I understand, 'prefers' the light coming in straight on, whereas on film that is of less concern. The reason should be that the photo-sites shadow each other when film enters them at a steep angle. Therefore, if one lens is so collimated as to emit a bunch of parallell rays towards the sensor, that would be preferable for a digital sensor. I'm no optics scientist at all, but I did notice a big difference in how my old 500/4 vignetted considerably on a D3 but never so on an F5. Same with the 70-200/2.8 which was indeed introduced in the digital era, but when there were only DX sensors around, which obviously don't suffer much from vignetting due to their smaller size. I do think they take particular precautions these days when designing lenses for digital cameras that they didn't have to in the film days. But that is not to say that all the old lenses are useless! Far from it.</p>

<p>On another note: If you're being patronised in a camera store it makes perfect sense not to buy there. But I dislike the practice of many to check gear out in a 'real' camera store and then buy it cheaper on the Internet. That way there won't be many 'real' stores around in the future. I am a regular customer at the nearest decent camera store (which sadly happens to be 170 miles away), and while buying there is marginally more expensive than on the 'net, the service they provide is worth a lot. If something brakes, I may borrow a replacement during service; if there's something new out, I may test it over the weekend. I'd like to see the Internet store that offers that to their regular customers..</p>

<p>In view of Nikon's tendency to reveal a bunch of new goodies at a time - I do hope this is not all they have to show at the upcoming PMA.. There are quite a few new lenses and upgrades of old ones I'm still wishing for..and a 35mm DX certainly wasn't one of them.. :(</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I have both the new 24/3.5 E and the (slightly older) 85/2.8 (non-E, but basically the same thing). I use both in the studio as well as outdoors. The 24, obviously, gives the more dramatic perspective of the two, and although it's not designated 'Micro' it still focuses reasonably close (0.2m). The difference is really the same as between any 24 and 85 mm lens. In the field I use the 24 for, e.g., forest interiors to get the tree trunks straight, and the 85 for close-ups where I need to control the plane of focus. So, come to think of it, I'd say I use the <i>shift</i> a lot more on the 24 than on the 85, and the <i>tilt</i> more on the 85 than on the 24. This comes as no surprise since a wide-angle is more prone to converging verticals while having an inherently larger DOF as compared to a short tele. The shift and tilt are by default set at right angles, but I'm thinking of having that changed. That way, I could have the trees straight and the focus along the forest floor. The 24 is also a wonderful lens for architecture, where the shift comes into its own. The 85 does have its uses for landscapes as well. Sometimes you want the perspective of a short tele in combination with a great DOF. And, it must be noted, that in addition to the tilt, the 85 can be stopped down quite a lot without adverse diffraction effects. Also, it does take some practice to get just the right amount of tilt. Do it wrong and you can completely ruin an image. But, to finally answer your question, I find I use the 85 mostly for close-ups and details. Not necessarily macro close-ups, but for picking out details in the landscape. For instance, I would use it for photographing a little rapid in a stream; a moss-covered log; a group of water lillies on a pond, that sort of things.</p>

<p>I used to do passport photos for my myself and others. But a year or two ago, Sweden (and I suspect the rest of the EU) decided they needed 'biometric' photos in passports. This requires a special cupboard-sized machine that only the passport police can afford. So that's the end of that little business.. :-( I still do photos for driving licences and ID's, though. But, since most of you people in this forum live in the US, this doesn't really concern you - yet!</p>

<p>This really is a question that can be answered in so many different ways, depending on what one specifically might have in mind. There are so many great contemporary photographers whose work has a tremendous influence due to their quality and the way images are distributed to such big audiences these days. But what about the pioneers? In Sweden, in the 1930's and 40's, there was a keen ornithologist and talented nature photographer who found that the available equipment wasn't quite up to the job. An entrepreneur of the first degree, he set about to invent a better camera system. His name? Victor Hasselblad! Not many have had the opportunity to see his photographs, but they are really quite excellent for its time. Now, wildlife photographers today rarely use the Hasselblad camera, but for landscapes it's still a remarkable camera. Ansel Adams used it, among others. So, while his photographs might not have made a big impact, his camera certainly has!</p>

<p>I've travelled to all sorts of places - India, Mexico, England, Tunisia, to name a few - and always carry with me a D3, a 70-200/2.8VR, 24-70/2.8, 14-24/2.8 & SB800, all in an inconspicuous Crumpler Geekster. It certainly happens that my shoulder aches at the end of the day, but that's nothing to the frustration I'd feel if I missed a shot because of laziness. A backpack would be an alternative that is better for your ergonomics, but is slower to operate and is less easily guarded against theft. Storing the gear in a hotel safe is a non-issue since it'll be with you all the time, or else you're sure to miss something fantastic. :-) If one can't be bothered to carry ones equipment because of its weight, one would be well adviced to carry a high-grade Coolpix instead.</p>

<p>The 70-200 is a marvellous lens for travel photography. Congratulations to your purchase!</p>