mats nilson photography

<p>Like so many others, I've spent far more of my photography career than I'd like to admit dreaming of equipment I simply couldn't afford, rather than putting what I've had to proper use.. I wish I had spent more time in the field and less time drooling over glossy brochures..</p>

<p>While a 300/4 may be more limiting than, say, a 500/4, it has the advantage of being affordable and not least portable. You can carry it along on a stroll along the seafront or through the park, thereby increasing your chances of actually having it at the ready if something interesting comes up - and if it doesn't you won't have broken your back in the process. (BTW, maybe you should consider the 80-400 VR if it's still within reach. It has the additional benefit of VR, though some say it's not a great lens, but I don't know myself.)</p>

<p>A little ingenuity can get you a long way. If the 300 won't have the reach you think you need, then get the birds closer to you, by feeding them and by hiding in a blind. Or use some kind of remote control photography. And be thankful for the AP-C sensor which turns the 300 into the equivalent of a 420 on full frame.</p>

<p>Just because a lens can't do what some other lens can doesn't mean it can't do anything!</p>

<p>Promise me not to feel sorry because you can't afford a longer or faster lens, and to enjoy being out there having fun photographing birds! Photography must be fun, why else do we do it?! :-)</p>

<p>I was mildly terrified before my first trip to India, expecting to be robbed as soon as I stepped out of the airport. I have since spent close to three months on three trips to India and never had a bad experience of any kind. I was forunate enough to have an Indian friend who kept me from being outright foolish, but common sense will take you a long way.</p>

<p>I was initially rather shy when it came to photographing people, but in my experience most Indians just like being photographed. As my friend put it: It's their chance at fame! Just remember to be polite, friendly and smiling!</p>

<p>There's so much colour and fantastic subjects to photograph in India that your greatest problem is likely to be "photographer's fatigue" after a week or two of intense photography! :-)</p>

<p>IMHO, what's by far more important than the actual domain name is the way your site is structured and tagged and therefore how easily it's found through search engines. How often does one actually <em>type</em> the URL as opposed to ending up there by following a link? Internet habits vary, but I dare say links are what make the 'net the powerful tool it is.<br>

I agree with those suggesting you use your name, if that's the 'brand' you're selling, as is most often the case for photographers. If your photography is already more commonly known by some fancy name (or a company name) then use that. As it happens, I use my name (matsnilson.com) for showcasing my photography, as well as a separate domain named after my company (akmgrafix.com) for the business side of it. Both inter-linked, of course. (Well, they <em>will</em> be when they receive a much needed update.. ;-) )</p>

<p>I sometimes use flash for bird photography, but one can obviously obtain quality bird images without one. The trick is to not make it obvious by lowering the output so as only to a) lighten up shadows a bit, b) add some sparkle to iridiscent feathers, if any, and, most crucially, c) to add a catchlight to the eyes. A pitch black bird's eye literally looks dead and while the sun might be the ideal catchlight, it won't be available in a back-lit subject.</p>

<p>Another thing to keep in mind is that while birds do not have cataracts (like someone mentioned) nocturnal bird species, in particular, have the same kind of reflective layer behind its retina as, e.g., cats and humans. And to avoid this 'red-eye' problem, the flash needs to be moved away from the lens by placing it on a bracket.</p>

<p>Good luck - have fun!</p>

<p>And please don't be disappointed with the lack of screen-view! :) The D40 is an SLR, meaning that you look through the actual lens of the camera, seeing precisely what you get. On a point-and-shoot, if there's any viewfinder at all, you look through a separate optical system which only approximately shows what the lens itself sees. And poorly too! Also, as you put the eye-piece to your face and tuck your elbows to your side as you look through an SLR, you get a much more stable set-up than the shake-prone balancing of a camera at arm's length!</p>

<p>Actually, the 70-200/2.8 was made for full-frame in the sense that it works excellently with film. Someone said they were made for APS sensors, but that's not quite true - it would have had a Dx designation then. Trouble is, a digital sensor is not as good at coping with light rays coming in at a slant, as is film. On the F5, and later on the D2Xs, I had no problems, but when switching to D3, several lenses started to show vignetting to some extent.</p>

<p>In fact, in many countries in southern Africa, you're not even allowed to wear camouflage dresses for some reason.</p>

If one does have the opportunity to lock-up the mirror, tighten a solid ballhead, weigh down ones tripod, etc etc, then I suppose a cable

release or remote would be preferable to touching the rig at all. However, in real life, subjects move about and one simply doesn't have a

choice but to manuever the camera and lens with ones hands. And then it's just not practical to use a cable release - the right index finger

is anyway in the right position to fire. So for static subjects, by all means try it, else proper long lens technique and as short a shutter

speed as possible is my best bet. Incidentally, I rather increase ISO and accept any noise, than having a noise-free but blurred image.

Obviously, this is easier with a Nikon D3 than with most any other camera.

Pixel count isn't everything. It's the quality of those pixels that count. And a well-informed rumour has it that the D3x is even better than the Hasselblad H3D in a controlled light environment. That is to say, not having to crank up ISO too much. If that turns out to be true, it's certainly a very viable alternative to medium format, what with the choice of lenses, flash system, accessories, and all.

 

I could certainly do with lots of pixels with a high dynamic range and low ISO for my landscapes. The D3 is much too fast at ISO 200 for some applications, forcing me to use ND filters and much too small apertures to get long enough exposures. But then again, that makes it just about perfect in other situations.

 

But I'll pass on this one. Simply can't justify the cost. I'm saving up for a new version of the 200/4 Micro which I hope might be in the Nikon pipeline.

I think it's great that the D3 and D3x are so similar, yet subtly but significantly different! I need both high ISO and lots of pixels, but not necessarily at the same time. High frame rate - well, for my purposes, both have that. But since they're relatively similar, they make perfect backups for each other, while at the same time offering an edge each of its own. Switching between them would probably be effortless.

 

Now...it's just a matter of affording them both.. :(

<p>Actually, when I look closer at the picture, it doesn't seem like the problem is caused by the sync speed after

all. Yes, 1/640s <b><em>is</em></b> too short (unless the Ikelites are capble of FP-high speed sync which I

doubt). But

the image is just vignetted, not blocked, as it would be if the shutter obscured the image (being so close to the

sensor). One can still see the whole image, but it's darkened top and bottom. This makes it even more likely that

there's something in the way, obscuring the field of view. And, like I said, too short a sync speed would just block

one side.<p>

Like everybody says, you've probably synced at too fast a shutter speed. However, shutter speed does not affect

exposure, unless you have enough natural light around to do the over exposure - and that, I'd imagine, is rarely the case

under water. The flash duration itself is so short, that only the aperture has an effect, regardless of shutter speed. In

other words: f/4 would yield the same exposure regardless.

 

I do find it a bit strange, though, that you get bands in both the top and bottom of the frame. Normally, the flash fires

when the first curtain has opened up completely. If your sync speed is too fast, the trailing curtain blocks the light, but

the first curtain shouldn't. So there should only be a dark band along either the upper or the lower edge, depending on

which way the curtains travel. Could it be that some part of the equipment intrudes either in the field of view of the lens,

or in the light-path of the strobes..?

What WOULD make anybody a better photographer is being out there with a camera, rather than spending time on various

internet forums.. :-)

Windows Vista is in most respects a carbon copy of Mac OS X. Says it all, doesn't it. Renaming 'Widgets' to 'Gadgets' shows the standard

of creativity at Microsoft.. Macs are for creative people, PCs are for accountants..

<p>Flare, yes there's flare, but that must be some otherworldly flare if that should be the only problem. Just look at

that second image! It's the darndest thing I've seen! And I haven't seen jpeg-artifacts behaving like that, either. They

just simplify things into blocks of eight pixels, but this looks like a multicolour printed circuit board!</p>

 

<p>Looking forward to a plausible explanation, 'coz I can't think of one.. How about asking <a

href="http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?

p_faqid=238&p_created=1031157067">Nikon support</a>? (assuming you live in the USA)</p>

I did the Googling and it appears that the purple lead is the shutter release, the white is 'meter on', and green is signal

ground. But you should test that. To connect all three, you will obviously need stereo-plugs.

 

Personally, I use the MC-22 which has a 10-pin connector at one end, and three banana contacts at the other. The MC-22

is just made for all sorts of DIY contraptions. On this, the Black lead is ground, and the blue and yellow ones are 'shutter

release' and 'meter on', just that I don't remember right now which one is which..

 

I realise you asked for 'wireless' but this would work, too.

<p>How far away do you need to be? If within, say, 50 metres, you could get an electric Nikon cable release, split it in

half and put ordinary phono plugs at both ends. Then take some signal cable of required length and put matching plugs

on its ends, and voilà, you have a very long cable release. You might have to figure out which leads do what, but that

can easily be Googled. (If you use the MC-30, you will need three leads to get the 'button-half-pressed' function)</p>

 

<p>Another cool gadget is the one found at <a href="http://www.zigview.co.uk/">Zigview</a> which allows you to watch

the viewfinder remotely, if only at 10 metres. I have no experience with this or the ones you mention, but the Zigview

seems useful if it works!</p>

Actually, like previously stated, the 1:1 scale refers to the magnification at the sensor. So that a macro lens focusing to 1:1 will yield a

tighter crop on a Dx sensor than on Fx. It will still be 1:1. However, as you enlarge that to an 8x10" print, the scale in the print will be much

beyond 1:1. So, does it matter how the end result is achieved; by cropping into the image or by using a true macro lens? Well, for one

thing, you will have more pixels to work with in the uncropped image (and so can make larger prints). But the actual scale is rarely

important, is it? It's the resulting image that counts! Only if you're into, say, forensics - and need to do measurements in the image - will

you need to care much about actual scale.

Yes, menus may well change during a firmware upgrade. Think of your camera as a computer and the screen as any old computer screen.

If you upgrade a program, its user interface may need to change, as easy as that. A firmware upgrade can even bring new functions to

your camera, and they will need their own menu.

Well, that of course, but there's not much harm in producing a graphic for fun. At least not compared to putting it on the front

page of a website.

 

Ah well, Nikon can sue me if they like. My wife will sue them back for making me waste so much money on their products!

:-)

With my name, I just couldn't resist making this graphic for a test-site that obviously will not reach a public audience for

reasons mentioned above..<div></div>

Don't even bother to read my gobbledygook. Ellis' comment hits the nail - read it! :-)

It obviously does not affect RAW-files in manual exposure, since one if its tricks is to slightly lower exposure to take

care of highlights. But then it needs to be given the chance. But then, since it does, some of its effect will obviously be

carried over into the RAW-file.

 

According to documentation, it is an exposure adjustment performed locally, i.e., lightening shadows and saving

highlights, while retaining midtone contrast. From what I understand, this ought to affect RAW-files as well, since it

affects exposure. It should not be confused, however, with D-lighting (non-Active so to speak) which is a post-capture

thing.

 

There seems to be major confusion on the 'net about what ADL really does, and I'm not sure I know it all. But it does

lower exposure - at least in automatic modes - and therefore does affect RAW-files.

The Nikon font is basically 'Arial bold italic', except that the dot over i is an oval in the logo and a skewed square in Arial

bold italic. I'm not aware of a font more close than that, but you can change the dot in, e.g., Adobe Illustrator, by converting

the type to paths and then just swapping the skewed square for an oval.

Nikon Scan is good when it obliges to run, but very often it won't, and besides, it doesn't run natively on Intel Macs, so one has to run Photoshop in Rosetta mode to access Nikon Scan from there. Nikon make fabulous optics and cameras, but their software is..well..not good, put simply.