mikepalo

<blockquote>

<p>1. Whether you need fast cards depends on whether you shoot a lot of sports/action "machine gun" style. If so, you want 2000x Lexar SD, not the 1000x.</p>

<p>2. Just out of curiosity, what is the point/advantage of having two totally different types of media cards in a camera with dual slots? I will be getting a D500 sometime this year, but personally think it would be more advantageous if both cards matched as they do with the D5.David Thomas s</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1. Thanks for the heads up I didn't realize they made a 2000x. Glad to know that! :D<br>

2. I agree with you completely but the D500 isn't offered with that option. I would much rather just have 2x XQD cards.</p>

<p>I am going to buy a D500 soon and am looking into the memory cards. I currently shoot with a D200, and thats the only DSLR I have owned, so 1 card slot, and no video... so no choices. Best memory card at the time was 4gb, so I have a few cause they only hold 200raw files = the only choice (and I still have those original cards so I've never had to research farther into choices as they developed). <br /><br />Here is my question; How does the Camera Allocate storage between 2 card slots? And how do those 2 slots deal with video vs still frames? I shoot raw, but have never shot more then 1000photos in a day and always get all my images off the camera at the days end. So I am looking to go with a small but top of the line Lexar 32GB Professional 1000x UHS-II SDHC Memory Card (Class 10, UHS Speed Class 3). This should be able to shoot about 1250 raw images which is perfect as a 1 and done for the day, (the 256gb version, the largest they make atm would hold 10,000+ images which is just ludicrous considering I empty the card at the end of the day). But if I shoot video especially 4k does it save to the same card, or does it use the XQD card for the video exclusively? Should I just get the Lexar Professional 128GB 2933x XQD 2.0 Memory Card as my XQD card, because of video? Or does it fill 1 card then the other, which would mean I should get the 128gb XQD AND the 256gb version of the SDHC? OR IF it fills 1 card then the other is it possible to tell it what to fill first? Meaning I could just have the large XQD, and the small 32gb SDHC as overflow? Please help me out. Thanks!</p>

<p>it does it just takes practice and patients, scuba has its drawbacks. bubbles are very loud so anything that can get away from you... generally tries to</p>

<p>Underwater photography is 99% technique more so even then above water. Ive seen SeaLife Point-n-shoots turn out beautiful photo's and Ive seen $10,000 Subal DSLR housings turn out snap shot quality. First of all what ever you do in the equipment world, go spend some time in pools before you go. Since you are only snorkeling you are limited by your ability to hold your breath. If you are just shooting from the surface you are going to get MUCH more garbage. You need to be able to get down to the subject and put as little space between you and the subject as possible, MAX 3-5ft (easy enough with corals and seascapes, easier said then done with fish). Secondly if your not using a weight belt, get one. Your not intending on using alot of weight just enough to help you stay down when your on the bottom with a full lung of air. Get in any body of salt water with what ever wet suit(if ur intending on having one on) to test weight just add 1lb at a time until you sink slightly with easy breaths out and rise slightly with each inhale, this should just be with minimal treading and your head should still always be out of the water. It should only take a few lbs (until you are really comfy with the weight belt don't go swimming really far away from the boat/shore/some secure floatation for the extra weight can help tire you out quickly) You want to be able to get down, swim around a bit, position your self and take your shot, depending on the depth 1min on a breath hold is kinda a minimum imho</p>

<p>Now when it comes to actual gear, I have experience with both an Olympus tough series point-n-shoot, SeaLife DC series Point-n-shoot, as well as a Sea&Sea DSLR Housing(my baby). The biggest suggestion, Get a flash unit, Get a flash unit, Get a flash unit. You can shoot some great shots without a flash but you are much more limited, to things like VERY shallow water, Clear water, Bright sun. Even then you are limited to shots like Sillouette shooting because to get the best lighting your going to want to shoot horizontal or up. If you staying under 10ft then your fine I guess w/o a flash but If your looking at 10 15 20+ ft your going to need added light to bring out your colors (Red completely disappears once you hit 33ft, I'm not expecting you to free dive 33ft necessarily BUT the closer you get to that depth the more muted the red side of the spectrum)Oh and also with flashes you want it as far away from the lens as possible. If the flash is right on top of the lens (like a regular camera flash) it will reflect off any dust particulates in the water back into the lens and you will see every one of those little specs in your shot. The farther away from the lens the strobe is the less of that halfmooning you will see and the smaller each spec of dust will appear. If the only flash you have is the on camera one It will be better to shoot only shots that you don't need the flash.</p>

<p>If your shooting Video make sure you move slow if you swing around fast you'll mess w/ your viewers eyes and you will mess w/ the lens/focus etc possibly even creating bubbles on the lens which will interfere with your shot obviously :D Also IF you buy a flash unit of any kind try to find one that has the ability to stay on as a spot light for video(kinda hard to find in lower $ flashes but im sure there are some out there, a jerryrigged underwater flashlight can work for this purpose too :D ), same concept as the flash for stills you want to add the reds back into anything in deeper water. </p>

<p>Complete Side note, while in Hawaii you may be able to do a "resort course" with your hotel which basically is a crash course in SCUBA which they will then allow you to dive with a Dive Master present. Just something you may like to think about because It is MUCH easier to shoot when you don't need to constantly swim back to the surface for air, even though the bubbles do scare off some of the bigger sea life sometimes.<br /> Let me know if you have any questions, maybe I can help more.</p>

<p>Both canoes and kayaks have huge advantages in their own fields. It depends what kind of trips you are planning in what kind of environments. Fast moving rivers? Still lakes? multiday? daytrip? Alone? with family? 50lbs of gear? 200lbs of gear? etc. Canoes are the most versatile as far as number of people and amount of gear but I am a fan of Kayaks myself (you can always pick up a second cheapy kayak for tag alongs, I actually prefer(and have myself) 2 solo kayaks to 1 tandem because you can pack more stuff into 2 solo's then you can in 1 tandem). I don't know what kind of $$ you are working with but IF you have the money to spend look into a HOBE kayak. Hobe's have something called a Hobe Drive, it is a foot paddle system under the bottom of the boat. You need a bit deeper water then a traditional kayak BUT you gain the ability to be completely hands free as you move around or even maintain location while in any sort of current without having to constantly pickup and put down your paddle. Also the hobe drive fins are always underwater, so no water slapping, meaning you can paddle along COMPLETELY silently which I'm sure I don't have to tell you is a huge advantage when trying to sneak up on skittish wildlife.</p>

<p>In December I am planning a trip out into the wilderness, to the darkest place I know, for the Gemenids Meteor shower. I am taking 2 cameras with me. My D200 to try and shoot some Meteors as well as an old film body for a few long exposures. I have 0 experience with film I am actually borrowing this body from my father for the trip. I want to do a few star trail long exposures over the couple days I will be out there. Can anyone give me some pointers on the settings to use and the film ISO I should be using to do LONG exposures 4-8hrs... also what length of time would be best? Any tips and pointers would be greatly appreciated for this. Thank you :D</p>

<p>-Michael Palozzola</p>

<p>Here is my Question, Why would the D600/400 be released as an FX sensor? The D800 is the new big bad wolf on the block why would Nikon release another major FX body within a year. Another major body release would have to try and fill a niche, the D800 is a slower body 4-fps, and can't compete with camera speed that cannon is known for with sports or high speed wildlife. Both wildlife and sports benefit from the DX sensor. Also being the replacement for the D300 the 400 or 600 or whatever they are gonna call it should be a DX body, hopefully right around 16-20mpxs and 10fps :D<br>

So I'm hoping and waiting for this release I currently still shoot the D200 as well. It's a great camera but will past it's prime. Preferring wildlife, especially birding in FL, I don't want to go FX. I want to stay in the DX format for the extra range. So here's to hoping.</p>

<p>As with almost anything else you are in a classic dilemma, 3 properties: Speed(f), quality, low price... Please pick two.<br>

<br />You cant get speed and quality without paying a price.</p>

<p>I am a big believe in shooting the same glass as your camera so with very few exceptions I have only shot extensively with Nikon lenses, so I can't vouch for any other brand in the range your are looking but I have shot with the 70-300 VR. It is a very affordable lens and it does decently well at isolating the background as long as your lighting is bright enough to keep the lens all the way open. And it's razor sharp all the way from 70-300 and at most f/stops, especially for a 700$ lens, that's a big boon.<br>

I'm not sure if you need anything wider as well but I recently picked up the 28-300mm as a nice walk around lens to keep from having to lug 4 lenses around when I'm not looking for and shooting something very specific (also saves the time of switching lenses and losing that shot in the process), but the 28-300 gets really soft when open all the way at 300.<br>

<br />In an Ideal world I would suggest the 70-200 f/2.8 and then the Nikon 300 f/4( or f/2.8 :D ). Those two lenses together are heavy but they make a wicked combo(and u can throw a 1.4x teleconverter on the 300 for even more reach)<br>

Also side note.... look into the teleconverters... the 70-200 I BELIEVE can take a 1.4x teleconverter which brings you up to almost 300 and still keeps you under f/5<br>

Here's also another question, which camera are you shooting on. If your shooting on a full frame currently, you could really go off the wall and grab a solid DX-body to go with the 70-200, that will give you the 300mm reach that a FX-sensor shows but with only using 1 lens (granted the 70 becomes a ~105 but if your not indoors I find a step or two back from a subject is easier then getting close to something that's too far away)</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents :P</p>

 

<p>I know I'm not in ideal conditions for this type of shot. I did just double check and the North Star is visible at my location. It's close to the horizon but, not TOO close it'll depend on the night specifically I guess. The purpose of the night is the meteors. The time lapse is something I want to do for a compilation. Hopefully Id like to combined the meteors in post with the star trail time lapse, unfortunately I did just discover that the direction of the Geminids will not be good to compile "realistically" but I will do what I can. It should still be interesting.</p>

<p>Ok so I dont know if this constitutes a beginner question but I didnt know wehre else to put it so here it is. This coming december I am going to be heading out into the everglades to go camping and watch the geminid meteor shower. I am bringing with me 2 bodies, a digital D200 along with a 35mm 1.8 in order to attempt and shoot the meteors, but also a film body with a 35mm f/2 lens to try and create a super long exposure and get all the star trails. My question is, what settings/film are used for LONG(such as 8hrs) exposures on a film body? I want to get something like this. Ignore the color I know that treated, I'm just talking the circular star trails. Thanks for any help in advance. Oh and PS where I'm headed is supposed to be the darkest sky in Florida way out in the SW glades, so city light pollution shouldn't be a problem.<br>

<img src="http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq208/mpalozzola/Untitled-1.jpg" alt="" width="541" height="700" /></p>

Ok after reading one of the earlier responces I think I'm starting to understand the flash a bit more. This may have been an issue of

misunderstanding what the LCD readout was actually telling me. I'm still trying to get used to the flash but I'm getting much more happy

results using the diffuser with or wothout the "zoom" function on the flash as opposed to constantly adjusting the +/- EV. Thanks for the

assistance, It won't let me look at who posted but the explanation of "longer range that the flash can put out the diminished request for

light." that response made me look at the readout differently. Thank you.

I shoot on manual mode, so I know that from shot to shot my ISO, Apatute, and shutter speed are not changing. Also i am

sure that the EV on the body is 0. I have been shooting close up portraits (under 10ft) at a local renaissance featival since I purchased

the flash and have noticed that I need to keep the EV at +3 in order to keep from blowing out the images

I've been shooting outdoors in decent sunlight ISO 100-250, shutter 250, Ap 8-16. I'm trying ideally to use the flash just as

a fill light to put a catch light in the eye and remove some of the more harsh shadows around mid day. I just don't

understand the -EV making the images blow out and the +EV making them darker?

I shoot a Nikon D200 an just recently bought a sb-700 speed flash. This is my first speed flash and while playing with it I found that if I

change the EV setting + the exposure gets darker and - it gets brighter even though the distance scale on the flash states that + is

increasing the range, which in theory would mean the flash would be outputting more light? Can anyone explain this to me please?

<p>I shoot with a Nikon D200 and the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye. I have heard there are programs and/or filters that correct the fisheye distortion. Can anyone point me towards a program or filter for PS CS3 that will correct this distortion? Thank you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Meteor trails in photos almost always have tapered ends and variations of brightness along them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well ok here is the tidbit on that specific meteor picture. The image is a compilation of 2 images the background from one the meteor (in the same location) from an earlier shot which blew out the background. in the earlier shot the camera was zoomed in slightly so actually the top tail of the meteor was cut off which would be why the meteor was not tapered in the rear... Also wouldn't a plane show a variation in light even more tehn a meteor, because you have the blinking lights under a plane, this trail is very solid until the end of, which is where i figured the meteor fissled out and broke apart.....?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most meteors are not that bright, and it takes a very bright one to make a strong image on film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By this rational.. which does seem to make sense... the longer the exposure the stronger of a meteor I will need for it to show up... So the solution to that seems to be so shoot using a 10-30sec exposure with the settings set so in that time frame i get good star light.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is how the pros do it:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.robertreeves.com/cluster.htm" target="_blank">http://www.robertreeves.com/cluster.htm</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is insane. I wish I could set something up like this, but alas Im just a college student on a student budget... soooo I must work with what I have.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's the Sigma 30mm 1.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I already have the Nikon 35mm 1.8 ... doesn't seem worth the $$ to go buy a new lens for 5mm</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(don't let lens purchases lock you into cropped sensor bodies)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My only body i have right now IS a crop body, and for what else I shoot (mainly wildlife) there is very little if ANY reason to go into FX.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>where you can use 1600 ISO,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The prob with 1600 ISO on the D200 is it is grainy and I dont like the image quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>find a darker-sky site</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am shooting at one of the darkest spots I can find accessible by road(aka without hiking Hours into the everglades). I may have found another site driving around in the everglades during this last shower which I will try in the near future, but im not sure of it yet.<br>

_____________________________________<br>

Also last meteor shower I got what I thought was a BRIGHT meteor which I later realized was just a plane across my frame. ... So now im not sure about a previous shoot...<br>

<a href="../photo/9633838">http://www.photo.net/photo/9633838</a> (plz view it larger)<br>

Does this speak plane? or Meteor?</p>

 

<ul>

<li>shoot when there is a meteor shower and after midnight -DIDIT </li>

<li>shoot with a wide, fast lens, 1 stop short of wide open -DIDIT</li>

<li>shoot in a VERY dark area (far away from city lights) on a moonless night -DIDIT</li>

<li>shoot lots of photos, 30 sec or more -DIDIT</li>

<li>use a moderately fast ISO ~400 or more -DIDIT</li>

<li>have patience! -KINDA DO</li>

</ul>

<p>My issue I was having was Meteors were streaking by IN FRAME but not showing up on camera. I know where i was aiming. I had marker stars I was using and watching between them ... I was getting meteors ... But none were showing up.....</p>

<p>Are there any Ultra Wide Lenses out there like 10-20mm that are very fast f/1.2-2.8 from any off brands like Sigma or something?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I tried most of the stuff said on that site and none of it seemed to work</p>

<p>OK soooo here is the deal. Ive been working on some meteor photography the last few months as the different showers have come through and I have been having a few problems.<br /><br /> Im shooting: <br /> Nikon D200 - w/ either -<br /> Tokina 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 - fisheye<br /> Nikkor 35mm f/1.8<br>

I also have access to <br>

Nikkor micro-60mm f/2.8<br /> Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 (I personally dont like this lens at all)<br /> Nikkor 70-300mm<br /><br /> I shot in aug then in nov then on sun night... The first two times I went out I shot with the 10-17mm exclusively, but this time I had the 35mm with me, so I tried that as well.. I liked the color of the sky much better in the f/1.8 pictures but the lens was WAY too tight I could barely get orion in frame never the less more of the sky. <br>

<br /> And using the 10-17 I had plenty of the sky in frame and often meteors would streak across the frame but I found they almost never showed up in the picture, I tried all different settings and exposure lengths. I tried everything from ISO 100-1250, with shutter speeds from 30" - 5min, and apertures from f/1.8-8. None of them seemed to show the meteors. I also tried closing the shutter immediately after a meteor streaked across the frame.<br>

<br /> Also with both the Nikkor and the Tokina I was having a bit of a problem getting the lens to focus to infinity. I started focusing them manually and was still haveing a problem getting pin-point focus especially on the 35mm f/1.8. The manual focus issue COULD just be from bad eyes but i felt that the focus ring wasn't adjusting as it should of been.<br>

<br /> Can anyone with some good experience shooting meteors tell me what they use for setting, and maybe show me a few results from those settings? I appreciate any help in this matter.<br>

<br /> -Michael Palozzola</p>

<p>dam i got 50% .. I originally had different selections... switched all 4... the 2 I had right I made switched wrong and the 2 I had wrong I corrected... so at one time I had all 4 right :P</p>

<p>The problem is with the cities behind me to the North and South, the glow extends into the open ocean, granted it is Better facing open water, but there is still a heavy glow which I believe would effect my camera settings substantially. Id probably have to go way above west palm to get a truly dark beach. Also it doesnt help that about a mile out there is almost ALWAYS a line of Cruise ships at night which are lit up like Christmas trees</p>

<p>Ok. I'd like to correct my last post seeing as I just reread the generations page. The camera does not create the distortion it is the lens which does it, BUT the newer Gen 2 cameras have a hand in correcting the CA distortion automatically.</p>

<p>The issue is in the reviews I've read about the 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5, I'm not comforted at all. They are actaully kinda negative in the wider focal range, and wide open apertures, but what I keep walking away from every review with is, "yes there are major issues but its the only one nikon offers so lets settle with it." I mean read this for instance.... this is earlier on this thread...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>both Nikon's 12-24 and 10-24mm AF-S DX are weak on the wide end. Since the OP is using a DX body, I would stick with a DX wide zoom, and the 10-24 is wider.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Basically what is being said is "yes this is a crappy lens at the job it was made for but use it anyway casue its there"</p>

<p>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I believe that CA, distortions, etc belong to lenses and are less influenced by what camera you are using.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you look on Ken Rockwells site, in the section about Generations of Digital Cameras he explains it all and has 100% crop comparison shots of the D200 vs D300 (gen 1 vs gen 2). The CA distortion is much more apparent in the D200 picture. I dont understand the specifics as to exactly why it works that way but it's something to do with the architecture of the camera itself and the way the camera perceives the light, granted certain lenses are more prone to it then others, but the camera also has a play in it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I absolutely love that review site u linked Mihai, that is definitally gonna be my first place to look for anything about lenses from now on :) ... I just wish he shot his test shots with a gen 1 camera so I could know how the lens will look shooting on my D200 in the realm of CA distortions, etc. But, cant have everything now can we? :)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If "sharpness is one of your biggest things," ditch the D200 and replace it with a D90 or a D300s.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>I would absolutely love to but I do not have the $$ to replace the body, and buy a lens. Also I shoot underwater with my D200, and in NO shape form or fashion have the money to replace my housing right now since they are all specific for the camera in which they were made, Soooo lets just work on lens sharpness for now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you would have a difficult time identifying which images were taken with it and which were taken with the Nikkor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wayne you wouldn't happen to have an comparison images between the two lenses would u?</p>