rodeo_joe1

<p>I wasn't impressed with the optical performance of my 70-210 AF f4-5.6 zoom Nikkor and quickly sold it many years ago when the trombone zoom became sloppy for the 3rd time after two repairs by Nikon under warranty. So, that lens would be first on my list to replace. The f/5.6 aperture is also quite limiting, especially since its wide-open performance is quite soft.</p> <p>However, if you want to expand the picture possibilities available to you, then I'd go for the 105mm VR Micro-Nikkor. Personally I'm not really interested in fiddling with the so-called bokeh of images, but I am fascinated by getting really close and having really sharp detail in my pictures. The VR will help in getting sharp handheld shots too. Your photographic interests may well vary, but the Micro-Nikkor would be my pick out of your suggested lenses. For wedding use its ability to photograph rings, bouquets and other close detail, in addition to being a good portrait length, make it a great choice. Besides, you can simulate OOF effects in PhotoShop using a blurred layer.</p> <p>(Before an argument breaks out over the subtle difference between what can be achieved with a DC lens and PS; for wedding use I think the main thing is to achieve a "dreamy" effect, and quite bluntly, most customers won't care how the effect was achieved, let alone be able to spot the difference between the two methods.) </p> <p> </p>

<p>$114 for a bit of wire and two 10 pin connectors? The words "rip" and "off" don't even begin to describe it.</p> <p>Two cheap radio trigger kits are about 1/4 the price and will work just as well, if not better, because you'll have to trip the shutter manually on one of the cameras when using the MC-23, <em>and</em> the cameras can only be about 18 inches apart. Plus you'll get two 10 pin connectors virtually free on the ends of the cheap radio remote receivers, which you could then wire together to get the same functionality as an MC-23, if you really wanted that limited functionality.</p> <p>Something like this perhaps? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wireless-Shutter-Control-Fujifilm-Finepix/dp/B004X7F5HE/ref=sr_1_8?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1403128376&sr=1-8&keywords=wireless+remote+for+nikon</p>

<p>A simple country scene in Norfolk, England. D800 + Tamron 28-75mm SP zoom.</p><div></div>

<p>"..can I manually set my Shutter speed in the flash and and do the same..?" - No, not if I'm understanding your question correctly. HSS/FP (Focal Plane) synch is needed for any shutter speed that exceeds the normal X-synch of the camera, and 1/1000th of a second will certainly do that. FP synchronisation is actually a function of the camera, rather than the flash, and the camera will only switch to FP synch mode when it detects an FP/HSS enabled flash in the hotshoe.</p> <p>The YN-568EX/ EX II are the <strong>only</strong> Yongnuo flashes to support FP/HSS. As far as I can see from the specifications, none of their other flashes support it at all.</p> <p>There's a good article on using HSS/FP synch for birding here: http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/view.asp?articleID=1026</p> <p>The article's explanation of how FP/HSS synch works is a little misleading however. FP synch works by triggering the flash as soon as the 1st shutter blind starts to open. So as long as the flash burst lasts as long as, or longer than the transit time of the shutter, then the frame will be fully exposed to the flash. Normal X synch only fires the flash when the 1st blind has reached the far side of the frame and before the 2nd blind starts to close. (Many flashes actually have a long enough duration when on full power for FP synch to work, and in most cases you need the full power of the flash in such circumstances.)</p> <p>FWIW, older film cameras often had a simple switch for "X" or "FP" synchronisation, or had separate P-C co-axial sockets for each type of synch. I don't see any reason why we can't still have that straightforward feature on modern DSLRs - except that then camera makers wouldn't be able to hype us into buying their overpriced flashguns quite so readily.</p>

<p>WRT the merits of a polarising filter: Personally, I think the effect on a blue sky is one of the least interesting uses of a polariser. Its ability to take the surface shine off foliage can be much more dramatic, and can really "pop" the colour of grass, flowers, fruits and trees when set to the appropriate angle. The same goes for glossy painted surfaces. You can also control the reflections from water to make it darker, more transparent etc. All of these things just cannot be done with any other filter or in post-processing.</p>

<p>I once inadvertently tested the "built like a tank" reputation of a Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom. It failed! The fall was no more than about 18 inches from the back seat of my car onto the floor. The lens fell directly on its front while attached to the Nikon F801s I was using at the time. No external damage was apparent, but the zooming had become stiff and the focus was off.</p> <p>It turned out that two little plastic (nylon?) riders had been cracked internally and a dent put in the cam race that they were supposed to glide in. After replacing the riders the zoom was useable, but never quite the same as new. So it doesn't take much of a knock to upset the delicate positioning of modern optical components. And I'm sure that the weight of the Tokina lens's metal barrel didn't help things in this case.</p>

<p>Come on Dieter, is using manual mode such a big chore? Time was (not so long ago) when the only way to do things was to twiddle a knob on top of the camera and twist a ring on the lens. Now we've got one or two thumbwheels to do the same thing - not quite so ergonomic IMHO, but no great effort or time taken to do either. Especially since the camera can now take care of the exposure for you via Auto-ISO.</p> <p>Your very valid point about not having to dig in menus would seem to run counter to wanting the ability to set up aperture limits. That would almost <em>have</em> to be done via a menu option. Or you could just turn the camera thumbwheel or lens ring as needed and achieve the same end.</p> <p>Now spare a pitying thought for some Canon EOS owners whose cameras won't allow Auto-ISO to be used in manual mode. A tear is rolling down my cheek as I type this. Of sadness or laughter? I'll let you decide.</p>

<p>Sorry Michal, but I'm not seeing any problem here. What you're basically asking is for Shutter Priority mode to act like Manual, in that you want control over both the aperture <em>and</em> shutter speed. What's wrong with just using Manual? Because by the time you've set all desired parameters in a menu, you could have switched to manual mode and set them directly several times over.</p> <p>Besides, with the restricted range of aperture/shutter/ISO options you've stated above, the camera will only work automatically over a range of about 5 stops. Unless you move to a planet with a much brighter sun!</p>

<p>Daniel, having used the D800 with some of the Ai-S lenses that you mention, and with more modern Nikkor zooms and AF lenses, I can tell you that the "fault" does not lie with the lenses. Unless, of course, your MF lenses are in poor condition, or misty, or have low contrast from some other cause.</p> <p> Some time ago I posted two shots of the same scene taken seconds apart, using the 24mm f/2.8 Ai-S Nikkor and the 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S Zoom-Nikkor. I challenged anyone to say for certain which shot was taken with which lens. To my eye there was very little difference in colour rendering or contrast, and if anything the old MF prime lens looked slightly more "punchy".</p> <p>In short, I'd say you need to look elsewhere than the lenses for the reason for any difference in colour rendering.</p>

<p>Mike, some time ago I posted a similar "complaint" about the D800 and its inability to recognise flashes like the sb-26, 25, 24 etc. I also got the "advice" to upgrade and stop being an old stick-in-the-mud.</p> <p>Having used i-TTL flashes, my advice would be - forget 'em! The AA mode of my old SB-25s is just as reliable, and the D700 made using them very easy in Aperture Priority mode. Nikon have obviously gone out of their way with their latest cameras to try and force us to use their expensive and over-hyped i-TTL/CLS wonders. You don't have to. A flash is simply another source of light, and as long as you know what you're doing with it, it doesn't have to be the latest and greatest. Besides, I'm damned if I'm going to replace 4 perfectly good speedlights with ones that are no more powerful and have a less user-friendly interface, but would cost me nearly the equivalent of $1800 US.</p> <p>Stick with your SB-26 in AA or manual mode Mike. You just have to remember to keep the shutter below the X-synch speed with the D800, and manually transpose the camera ISO and Aperture to the flash, or vice versa.</p>

<p>If you haven't already got a polarising filter Mark, then get one of those before an A2. The effect of the A2 can easily be reproduced digitally - in fact some of Nikon's DSLRs have a WB shift in the blue or amber direction built in. Whereas the effect of a polariser is difficult or impossible to reproduce in post.</p> <p>As others have already said. If you use AWB, then the effect of a filter like an A2 will be pretty much cancelled out by the camera. And using a WB setting like "Cloudy", "Shade" or "Flash" will often warm the colour balance nicely without use of a filter. While shooting RAW lets you choose almost any colour balance you like within reason.</p> <p>FWIW; I see many (dull looking) sunsets that appear to have been taken on AWB. Aaaaargh! What a mistake to make. AWB tends to integrate all colours in the image to a neutral grey, and that's the last thing you want with a sunset scene. Sunsets should nearly always be taken with the "Daylight" WB setting, or of course using the "Sunset" scene mode.</p> <p>Edit. Re the merits of using filters with a digital camera: Most cameras have a lower limit to their WB in that they can't cope with very cool colour temperatures (< 2500K) - candlelight for example. In this case a blue CT filter can help a lot, although the loss of ISO speed may well be the deciding factor as to its worth.</p>

<p>The response of a DSLR to fluorescent light isn't the same as film, and you'll probably find that whatever green filter you used back in the film days just won't match the ambient lights with digital. Besides, there are many different types of fluorescent tube around, and each needs a slightly different filter to match it. Most decent cameras give you the option of choosing among a range of fluorescent lamp types - Except for the horrible compact fluorescent lamps that are becoming commonplace. These CFLs don't appear to match any preset WB, and can't be accommodated by AWB either. The only thing that works is a custom WB with these curly little beggars.</p> <p>FWIW, I've found that a more yellow-green filter tends to be a closer match to most fluorescent tubes on digital. YMMV. What you might want to do is take a shot under the fluorescent lights, but with the camera on its flash balance setting. That way you can see how the camera's sensor will render the FL lights and judge an approximate filter colour to match that. If you're not worried about an exact colour match, then a guesstimate might well be close enough after a bit of post processing.</p>

<p>The Sunpak rechargeable HV battery is actually an inverter circuit and set of low-voltage NiCd cells in a plastic container the same size as an old 510v dry battery. It has 10 AA sized tag-ended cells inside, which are readily available and fairly easily replaced. Recycle time when used with a Sunpak AZ3600 is around 4 seconds between full power flashes.</p> <p>The original NiCds fitted in the Sunpak "battery" are only 600mAH cells. If replaced with modern 1200mAH or higher capacity NiMH cells, then the useable time between charges is much extended. However, the Sunpak flashes that it was designed to be used with require only an input of around 360 volts, so whether the Sunpak unit would drive a Metz 403 is another question. I don't see why it shouldn't, but it's something you'd probably have to take a chance on.</p>

<p>It's going to <em>have</em> to come sometime, but I doubt that Nikon will take the first step. You only have to see and feel the quietness and quick shutter response of the D800 in LiveView mode to see that it's the way forward. (The ridiculously long time to review is a different matter.) The mirrorless DSLR makes perfect sense from an engineering point of view.</p> <p>An optical viewfinder? Leica have that covered - badly. Who's going to twiddle a rotating turret of viewfinder lenses these days? And automatically coupling the lens to a zoom viewfinder rules out backward compatibility with Nikon's entire F mount lenses to date.</p> <p>That leaves the EVF, which videographers have been perfectly happy to use for ages now. In fact a high resolution EVF that gave a close WYSIWYG to the final image would be a great step forward in terms of improving photographers' visual abilities; rather than being encumbered with a stack of useless peripheral exposure information. The magnified point-of-focus inset is a great tool once you get used to it, and as long as it can be switched on and off at will. </p>

<p>Has anyone <em>not</em> wrapped a tube of black paper or card to make a snoot? Or stretched some white material or tracing paper in front of a light?</p> <p>There are far too many ready-made modifiers on the market - most of which claim to give your light some "magic" property that no other modifier will do. Pure bullshot!</p> <p>"Parabolic" modifiers made out of flat sectors and finished matt white for example. As for the Fong Dong; don't get me started on that.</p> <p>Also see this thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cCWO</p>

<p>I keep seeing the recommendation to use a reversing ring on its own, with a prime or other unit focusing lenses. So I'll repeat - <em>Reversing rings are meant to be used in conjunction with a bellows.</em> If used with just the lens, then you can't alter the focus or magnification. You have one fixed focus, which is not very useful. When you reverse a unit focusing lens, then the focus ring no longer alters the distance between lens and camera. All it does is act like an extending lens hood.</p> <p>A reversing ring works after a fashion with internal-focus (IF) lenses, and this includes most zooms, but the 20mm f/2.8 AF Nikkor is a unit focusing lens. Therefore you'll get but one fixed focus if you use it on a BR-2A or any other reversing ring. Bulky as it may be, a bellows unit is really the only sensible option for magnifications of 4x and above.</p>

<p>Definitely <strong>do not format the card</strong>, until you've recovered the pictures from it.</p> <p>This free (open source) software from Transcend will get back any photos that are recoverable from the card:<br /> http://www.transcendusa.com/Support/Software-4/</p> <p>I've used it a few times in the past, and if there's anything recoverable on the card, it'll find it. Remember though, that what you're viewing on the camera screen is usually just a thumbnail Jpeg, and not the whole file. However, if you can zoom into the review on your camera, that's a good sign, because it means that the image data are still there and intact.</p>

<p>"What's the working distance..." Errr, enough!<br> I didn't think to measure it, but I was surprised that the lens was nowhere near scraping the screen. Around 60mm clearance I would guess. I could've got a small flash in there at a shallow angle - no question. What I prefer to do is surround the subject with a part circle (or rather slotted tube) of white card or paper and blow some flash in sideways through the gap. This works quite well for coins and suchlike, by showing texture in relief while the shadows are evenly filled by reflection from the paper. Or you can use a tube of translucent material completely surrounding the subject and lens, and fire one or more flashes in by diffusion. ...... That's if you don't choose a subject that's backlit like I did!</p>

<p>Not sure if mine is the Mk 1, but I don't remember there being another option when I bought it, so I guess it is. It is all black resin-coated however, and I think the first version had chrome finished top legs sections.</p> <p>JDM: The "story" behind the advice to keep hold of the camera is that, as Mike said, the whole rig goes loose once you've undone the single lever that locks the thing. Haven't damaged a camera or lens with it yet, but there may still be time! As for it doing many things poorly - not really - it does just one thing. It holds a camera in practically any position you like really well. You just have to take a bit of care when setting up and releasing the legs.</p> <p>Mike: I customised mine by dismantling it and greasing the tops of the legs, where the bolt goes through. It actually makes the transition between locked and floppy less digital, and allows you to gently adjust things with the locking lever nearly, but not quite, locked up tight.</p>

<p>MP-E 65? Pah! Who needs Canon's overpriced magnifying glass when a reversed 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor and adapted set of Pentax bellows will get you there?</p> <p>Below (oops, near pun) is a shot of my laptop screen's pixels. Nearest I had handy to a fly's eye, and at least my laptop will keep still for me without killing it.</p> <p>The pixels (each comprising 3 of the little red, green and blue strips) are around 0.25mm wide and high actual size. So the magnification is a little over 4 times at the sensor; with an extension of 160mm - all that my old Pentax bellows will allow. Another 50mm extension would get you into the 5x range easily.</p> <p>Aperture was f/8 at a dodgy 1/3rd of a second with MU on the D700, ISO set at 800 and bellows planted on a sturdy tripod. It doesn't need a lot of vibration to take the edge off your sharpness at that mag. and if I could have set the whole rig in concrete it may have turned out a little sharper!</p> <p>Of course with a non self-luminous subject I could have used flash and saved a bit of bother with high ISO and slow shutter speed. Didn't think of that before I'd pointed the camera at the screen. Doh!</p><div></div>

<p>Forget Ben<em>ro</em> look at a Ben<em>bo</em> tripod for maximum versatility. There's a nice demo video by world famous nature photographer Heather Angel here:<br> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxNHauCqlhM</p> <p>I've had a Benbo for years and wouldn't be without it for table top, low angle or macro use. Unbelievably versatile. You just have to remember to keep hold of the camera when you loosen its locking lever!</p> <p>A company called Uni-Loc have a very similar design also. </p>

<p>Just curious Jean, but how useful and reliable do you find Auto-area AF? Every time I've tried it the camera selects some random focus point that's absolutely nowhere near where I'd want it to be.</p> <p>Wouldn't Dynamic-area AF or 3D tracking suit your purpose a little better? Since you can manually select the focus point and the camera will then track it if you recompose or the subject moves. That way you wouldn't have any need to switch modes.</p> <p>" My research leads me to believe that I could change focus points more quickly by using the function button on the D5300." - Not focus points, but focus <em>modes.</em> You'd still have to use the joystick control to position the focus point. It might be easier to get into the habit of just manually selecting the focus point, rather than swapping modes all the time. I'm not sure that a change of camera body would actually make focus mode selection that much quicker or easier. It certainly won't make Auto-area AF any more reliable.</p>

<p>+1 to Andrew's reply. A straightforward "No" would have sufficed as an answer to the OP's question.</p>

<p>+1 to betting you have redeye reduction turned on. There's an unbelievably long delay between hitting the shutter button and the camera responding in this mode - even on Nikon's higher end semi-pro DSLRs. IMHO the delay makes it a useless feature that you should never enable. Subject could easily have walked out of frame before the camera takes the shot - or fallen asleep waiting.</p>

<p>Rick. My suggestion was to place the ND gels <em>inside </em> the lens where the original perforated filters are fitted. Not on the front of the lens.</p>