rodeo_joe1

<p>How difficult can it be to get what are basically 3 lens caps and drill a few holes in 'em?<br /> Well, errr, actually quite a few holes, but it still ain't rocket surgery.</p> <p>Edit: Wouldn't a couple of suitably sized 0.3 and 0.15 ND filters do exactly the same job of cutting down light while allowing the periphery of the lens to be used?</p> <p>Edit to the edit: The filters would have to be gels of course, and you could cut an f/8 sized hole in the middle.</p>

<p>Constantly removing and re-fitting the lens will wear the lens mount and likely do more long-term damage than just leaving the lens in place.</p> <p>WRT 3rd party 82mm caps: Some of them are a direct copy of the Nikon cap and actually (falsely) say <em>Nikon</em> on the front. Apart from a less refined finish they work just as well and can be bought very cheaply from internet suppliers. Personally I think that Tamron's pinch-style lens caps are slightly more ergonomic than Nikon's, but they're only usually found used or in "rummage bins" at camera stores.</p>

<p>The "theme" of this week's thread has finally provoked me into taking this shot that I've had in mind for a while.<br> Tech data: D800 + Tamron 90mm Macro @ f/11. Small off-camera Metz flash to simulate harsh sunlight.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>"The strobes are optically triggered so that means anyone with a flash on their camera could use the setup."</p> </blockquote> <p>Not necessarily. Camera manufacturers are doing their hardest to make their cameras useable only with their OEM flash or compatible units. Unless the photographer has the right camera and knows how to use it, then pre-flashes will set off the studio strobes before the shutter even opens. I think you should provide radio triggers to ensure the fullest compatibility. Even if these are only budget ones, they'll be better than optical slaving.</p> <p>I'd also expect a minimum of three lights available if I was renting a studio. Two are a bit limiting if you're aiming for a classic portrait setup of Key, Hair and BG light. A lower power unit would be adequate for a hair-light or kicker, and a snoot would make it even more useable. A decent boom for overhead lighting would be a nice addition too.</p> <p>You also need to consider health & safety issues unless you have very good public liability insurance. Make sure the stands you supply are sturdy enough not to be easily knocked over - a few "sandbags" might be a good idea. Portable electrical equipment (like flash) should be professionally checked for electrical safety at frequent intervals as well.</p>

<p>Check that you didn't have the flash manually cancelled Greg. Or that there was nothing preventing the flash from popping up completely. Also check menu option e3 to see if the flash is really in TTL mode. If it's in commander mode then it may not illuminate the subject.</p> <p>If the flash cannot supply enough power for the ambient lighting conditions or manual settings, then the D7000 manual says this:</p> <blockquote> <p>"When the flash fires at full power, the flash-indicator in the camera viewfinder will blink to warn that the resulting photograph may be underexposed." - D7000 manual p. 223</p> </blockquote> <p>Are you sure that the flash didn't fire and that it just had little or no effect on the picture?</p>

<p>Agreed, the 14-24mm f/2.8 Zoom-Nikkor is the only lens that's really going to cut it with a D800 at focal lengths below 24mm. Provided size, weight, cost, poor lens shading and the lack of a filter are no object.</p> <p>My experience with the Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 ATX is that it's pretty awful wide open, but only needs to be stopped down to f/3.5 to return acceptable IQ. The contrast is still fairly low at all apertures, and flare is an issue. Still it's a lot smaller and lighter than the 14-24mm Nikkor and offers (probably) the most used range of wideangle focal lengths. The 20mm f/2.8 prime Nikkor - either AF or MF version - is a better lens. If you want something shorter and cheaper it's worth looking at the Samyang 14mm f/2.8. No AF, but there's so much DoF it hardly needs accurate focus.</p> <p>I don't know about the more modern Tokinas, since the 14-24mm Nikkor does most of what I want from a wideangle, and the Tamron 28-75mm SP f/2.8 takes over at the longer end.</p>

<p>"Vinegar and water.." - Nope! Vinegar is itself created by a type of fungus working on alcohol. The last thing you need is more fungi inside the lens. Best fungus killer/remover is thin household bleach or baby-bottle steriliser. Look for something that contains Sodium Hypochlorite, but not Sodium Hydroxide as many so-called bleaches do these days.</p> <p>Baby-bottle steriliser tablets diluted as per the instructions are probably the best thing to use. At least you can be sure they'll only contain a fungicide and bactericide.</p>

<p>Dave, just get a D800E. If you can't do the job with that, then I doubt there's anything else out there that will do it. Ignore the previous toing-and-froing about Bayer patterns (stupidest idea in Christendom - but that's just my opinion), because all commercially available cameras use it. That's unless you want a purely B+W image, in which case there are unfiltered options. Nikon would probably de-filter a D800 for you at a price.</p> <p>Anyway, the D800E has one of the best sensors out there, and also the Nikon body and F mount gives you a very wide range of lens options. Although I strongly suspect that most of that $20K will need to be spent on specialist optics, and maybe on building a concrete plinth to hold the camera absolutely steady. The D800E is genuinely capable of resolving 100 lppmm. But when you say "resolving objects of 0.25mm in size", I take it you don't mean resolving 0.25mm wide black and white lines.</p> <p>FWIW, I've been able to spot flies and bees resting on a chimney pot at about 30 metres distance when doing some lens tests on my D800. Couldn't see them at all through the viewfinder until the images were viewed 100% on the computer.</p> <p>As for the lens you need, it'll obviously need to be an Apo spec lens, but the focal length will need to be worked out according to the magnification you need, and probably custom built.</p> <p>Edit: The high(er) pixel numbers of medium format backs are purely a function of their greater area. If you look at pixel density, which is what fundamentally dictates the resolution of a sensor, then the D800(E) is about as good as it gets. In fact their are DX sensor cameras that have just as high a pixel-density. So it just depends how wide your field-of-view needs to be. Astrophotographers do great thing with tiny little VGA and XVGA sensors stuck on the end of their telescopes. Or maybe you could butcher a Nokia phone for the stupidly high pixel-density sensor that's wasted inside it behind a crappy lens.</p>

<p>Ian, the traffic cone (VLC icon) means nothing. I do have VLC installed on my machine - best free media player out there IMHO - and I get the same Icon next to my Nikon update. Once transferred to the camera card the update file should work fine with the camera, since the camera knows nothing about VLC or whatever other file associations your computer has.</p> <p>If the VLC icon worries you, you can get rid of it by right-clicking on the .bin file and selecting "Properties". You'll then see a dialogue box that says "Opens with:". To the right of that is a blue box that says "Change", where you can select another program to open .bin files. Just select Notepad and the cone icon will go away.</p>

<p>Another thought about your failed update Ian. The update has to be on the <em>primary</em> card of the camera. Check the menu item that sets "use CF or SD card first". Whatever is set as the first card; that's the card that needs the update (D800_0110.bin) file written to it.</p>

<p>Don't write off Samyang's 35mm f/1.4 from the running either. Just because it's a fraction of the price of Zeissina's ZF2 or cheaper even than a used 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor Ai-S. At least it's fully compatible with the F3 and is a modern aspheric design. Mind you it'll double the weight of the F3 and dwarf the camera body.</p> <p>The ZF2 is a nice lens, but not <em>that</em> much better than the old Ai-S 35mm f/2 Nikkor. The Samyang easily beats both of them at f/2, and also beats the old 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor wide open. By f/4 the IQ is just about perfect with contrast and colour-rendering being superb.</p>

<p>Agree with all the above responses. I updated my D800 a few days ago with absolutely no issues at all. As previously stated a dot-BIN file shouldn't be associated with or need VLC player. I doubt it would really help if Nikon sent you the file direct Ian. Once it was on your computer you'd have the same problem with the computer attempting to open the file using an incorrect program.</p> <p>BTW. It appears that the card used for update doesn't need to be blank. With every previous update I have used a freshly formatted card. This time (being lazy) I just copied the update folder to the root of the card that I'd been using in the camera - complete with DCIM folder containing pictures. The update went ahead without a hitch. The update process does need a reasonably well-charged battery before it'll go ahead though. If the camera detects a low battery it won't allow the update to start, or asks for the camera to be connected to an external power supply.</p>

<p>Looks like a useful combo - but, no I haven't any experience of using it. There's a list of Cactus dealers here:<br> http://www.cactus-image.com/dealer.html<br> Nearest to the UK are the ones in Belgium, Holland and France. Forget the Belgian outfit, they only seem to carry a limited range of Cactus triggers.<br> Camera Tools in the Netherlands looks about your best bet. Not cheap though with the current near Euro-Pound parity.<br> http://www.cameratools.com/shop/product/search-results/?alstart=0&artsearch=cactus&artsearchmode=AND</p>

<p>If you didn't use a tripod or support the camera firmly in some other way, then the fault is almost certainly down to camera shake.</p> <p>A shutter speed of 1/45th of a second is far too slow (long) to reliably hand-hold at close to 200mm on a DX camera. Suggest you buy a tripod or raise the ISO speed considerably for such shots.</p>

<p>The Tamron VC version is worth the extra IMHO. The VC is rock steady and the lens is fully useable wide open. Easily on a par with the Nikon I'd say. It's a completely recomputed design from Tamron's earlier version. See the DXO results to compare the Nikon and Tamron. Sigma really isn't even in the running IQ wise.</p> <p>Shame that none of the current 70-200mm offerings from Nikon, Tamron or Sigma actually hold their focal length as they're focused close.</p>

<p>There were many other finders available than those listed above.<br> See this link: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/prisms/index.htm</p> <p>Apart from the plain eyelevel finder the main difference between the Photomic (metering) prisms was whether they used a CdS or an SPD cell for measurement and the type of meter coupling. Those finders with the letter "A" in their designation have an Ai coupler, while earlier models needed lenses with a coupler fork (AKA rabbit ears). The lens aperture ring then had to be rotated back and forth to ensure the prong on the meter had engaged with the tines on the lens.</p>

<p>Why not simply wear a suitable pair of spectacles Steve? As a lifetime specs wearer I've never had any trouble using my F2 or any other Nikon camera. The dioptre correction inserts have a scratchy serrated metal rim, and are only suitable for straightforward prescriptions. The original eyepiece cover has a rubber surround that allows the safe and close use of spectacles - because it's non scratch!</p>

<p>I have a pretty much now unused 5D and a D700 that gets almost daily use. Much as the previous poster said; the D700 has far better dynamic range and much better low noise/high ISO performance. Nikon's lens compatibility with older glass and accessories is also much better than Canon's. Having said that, I think the 5D has more reliable metering and arguably better AF and a slightly clearer viewfinder, but its menu system is antiquated and limited.</p> <p>The D700 can still stand comparison with many modern DSLRs, while the 5D is distinctly looking like yesterday's technology. Could you tell the difference in image quality between the two at 200 ISO? Not for the average scene maybe, but when the contrast gets a bit high the D700 will win hands down.</p> <p>Edit: "But why are used D700 prices so high (almost the same as D600)"? - Then the answer's simple. Buy a D600; making sure it doesn't suffer from oil spots of course.<br> Also the Canon <em>can</em> be used with Nikon and other marque lenses, but if you've ever tried it, it's not a serious option.</p>

<p>Surely the whole point of a ringlight is that it gets rid of halo shadows? Unless, of course, if it's used slightly off camera.</p>

<p>The slight blue flare bottom right and left take away its abstract quality a bit for me Steve. And personally I'd tone down the mid-right bright highlight. Overall though, I'm liking the abstract nature of it.</p> <p>BTW. The original Kinks' lyric stated the name of a famous cola brand, but their record company made them change it for legal reasons. There's only one that scans with "cherry cola", so I think we can all guess the company's name.</p>

<p>Michael, you do realise that the SB-29s is film-only TTL compatible don't you? You'll get no exposure automation on a DSLR. It doesn't support i-TTL.</p> <p>I see no reason why the power unit of the SB-29s shouldn't fit any camera hotshoe, but you'll be totally limited to all manual operation. That is you'll have to use "M" mode on the camera and set the aperture and shutter speed yourself, as well as adjust the power on the flash manually to suit.</p> <p>Nikon's official compatibility list is here: https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/6906/~/sb-29s-lens-and-camera-compatibility<br /> and specifically states that the UR-3 adapter is needed with the 60mm D lens.</p> <p>Edit: It looks to me as if the UR-3 is designed so that the weight of the flash tubes doesn't have to be taken on the long extending lens barrel. </p>

<p>Cheaper, I would think, to get an SB-800 than to buy the expensive PW mini and flexTT5. The equivalent US dollar price here for a pair of (break your) Pocket Wizards is around $450. You could easily get an SB-800 for less than that.</p> <p>The reason I'd recommend an SB-800 is because it's one whole stop more powerful than your SB-700, with a realistic GN of 28 (metres/100 ISO) as opposed to the true GN of ~22 for an SB-700. If you're trying to overpower the sun or average daylight, then an SB-700 doesn't really have enough power to do that at more than a few feet distance. At 1/4000th sec shutter speed those Guide Numbers will drop to 10 and 7 respectively! And that's using direct flash. If you then want to use any sort of modifier you need to set a high ISO - which kind of defeats the point of using FP synch - or use a lens with a very wide aperture.</p> <p>Of course the PWs are much more reliable than CLS in daylight, but they still don't get you any more flash output power. And I believe that similar Chinese made products can be bought for a lot less money.</p>

<p>Urmmm. How about getting a strap that fits into the tripod socket of the lens, or simply wraps around it?</p>

<p>Copying from one card to another using the D800 isn't the swiftest of exercises. 2GB of files took me around 5 minutes to transfer from CF to SD. So a full 16GB card would take 35 to 40 minutes in my estimation, and will obviously use battery power continuously in the process. You'll probably also want to recharge the camera battery overnight, or better yet carry one or two spare batteries.</p> <p>However, a 64GB SD card will hold roughly 1000 RAW+JPEGs. That's quite a lot of shooting in one day for the average tourist. Unless you never take your eye away from the camera long enough to actually enjoy the trip!</p> <p>PS. No Andrew, the new firmware update doesn't make Live View shooting any quicker. :-{</p>

<blockquote> <p>"A simple google search will find numerous applications of this term "fluorine coating" by various companies (Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Nanoprotex, G'zog, looks like there are lots) so it's established terminology."</p> </blockquote> <p>A simple Google search will also find the words "silicone" and "silicon" inextricably confused, as well as numerous other totally incorrect "facts". I notice the words "then" and "than" being used interchangeably as well, despite their having totally different meanings according to every dictionary I can find.</p> <p>Language is the means by which we transmit, transfer, inherit and bequeath knowledge. Therefore it should be in everyone's interest to use it correctly and in a manner that avoids confusion. I'm not against language evolving, but the lazy use of incorrect terms for the sake of dumbing down for advertising purposes is actually a devolution of language. Now who's next for a polytetrafluorine-ethanol hip replacement, or a silicon breast implant?</p>