rodeo_joe1

<p>It's possible that the aperture hasn't been adjusted properly at the factory - like they forgot to adequately grease the zoom mechanism on a number of these lenses.</p> <p>Dror, look into the zoom lens with the aperture lever pushed fully up and see if any of the aperture blades are visible. You might see an angular opening (incorrect) rather than a perfectly circular one (correct). Then look again with the lens on the camera and see if the opening is still circular. If you see any of the iris blades poking in beyond the circular aperture mask in either case, then you need to return the lens for replacement/adjustment.</p> <p>Another possibility is that the aperture on your 50mm f/1.8 lens isn't closing properly. Because who's to say which lens is giving you closer to a true f/2.8?</p> <p>WRT vignetting: If that's the "fault" then the central brightness of both images should still be roughly the same, and only the outer ~1/3rd of the image circle should be affected. However at first glance vignetting can be mistaken for underexposure.</p> <p>Just tried the same thing with my 28-75mm f/2.8 SP Tamron zoom wide open at 50mm, and a 50mm f/1.2 Ai-S Nikkor set at f/2.8 - almost zero difference in exposure histogram. Certainly no overall shift in one direction or the other, although I did notice than the MF prime gave a noticeably cooler colour rendering than the zoom. That was with both lenses pointed at a plain painted wall with their focus set at infinity and both on manual focus; otherwise the AF lens couldn't find focus and would lock the shutter. The degree of vignetting looked very similar on both lenses too.</p> <p>Edit: How many comparison shots did you take Dror, and in what lighting conditions? Daylight can change very quickly, sometimes much faster than you can change a lens. Try the same again under constant artificial light or manually controlled flash. It's pointless using I-TTL controlled flash for such a test.</p>

<p>I'm curious whether the 200mm f/4 Ai-S Nikkor was reformulated from the plain Ai version? From the mir.com site it appears they're optically identical, but the glass used may have been changed to a lower dispersion type.<br> <br /> You see I have a 200mm f/4 Ai version that I was fond of using on the D700, but the D800 really shows up its flaws (lateral CA mainly). In fact I think my 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S zoom Nikkor is a better match to the D800, but a bit heavier and bulkier than the neat little 200mm prime.<br> So I'm wondering if it's worth looking for an Ai-S version as an "upgrade" since they don't usually cost very much.</p>

<p>"..focal length used was 170mm." - Well, that's about the maximum real focal length of the new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR zoom Nikkor at portrait distances! Time was when the focal length(s) marked on a lens were pretty much what you got. Not any more it seems. It does feel like being short-changed and totally misled.</p> <p>Edit: BTW, Elvis, Tamron's 70-200 f/2.8 SP VC lens is every bit as good optically as the Nikon version, and at about 2/3rds of the price.</p>

<p>The Nissin range are very good, but a lot more expensive than YongNuo, while still being cheaper than the Canon or Nikon equivalent. I've been using a Nissin Di866 for some time now and found it totally reliable and very powerful. Not sure if it's the only model that supports FP/HSS, since I haven't looked at the spec of other Nissins. One or two flashes in the Metz range might be suitable as well, but I have no experience of any current Metz model. The Metz flashes that I've used in the past have been very reliable and well-made.</p> <p>You might also want to search for other threads on high-speed synch in this forum, because it's possible to "fool" a camera into Focal-Plane synchronisation while firing almost any old flash via the P-C socket. I've done this with an ancient Metz 45CT-1, and the results were perfectly useable.</p>

<p>Very sorry to hear about your medical event Roy.<br> However I briefly handled a Df at a trade show and it looked and felt like a cheap, gimmicky toy to me. Nuff said in my book! If I really needed better low-light performance than I get from my D700 or D800, then I'd be saving my pennies for the phenomenally sensitive D4s. Unfortunately, by the time I save enough pennies there'll be something even better on the market for sure.</p>

<p>Why wouldn't the radio triggers be synchronised? Or more to the point, <em>how couldn't </em>the radio triggers be synchronised? The signal from the transmitter travels at the speed of light, and the decoding delay in the receivers might add all of a few nanoseconds onto that. And any delay will be the same for both receivers, so the cameras <em>have</em> to be fired at the same time.</p> <p>We all know that the range advertised by trigger makers is very optimistic and terrain dependent, even for the top-end models. However it's not very often that you need to use a remote more than a few feet from the camera, and these things will work reliably at least up to 50ft away - I know because I've tried it. Leave your camera unattended any further away in an urban environment and you're likely not to have a camera or tripod to come back to!</p>

<p>Sorry, but why would anyone want to stick a >10 times zoom on a full-frame DSLR? You just know that the optical quality is going to be pretty poor and the aperture pretty dim. The small, lightweight, one lens, image-stabilised megazoom solution already exists in bridge and compact cameras, and in most cases for far less money than just this one lens.</p>

<p>I still think there's very little a DC lens can achieve that can't in some ways be done better by Photoshop. This unfortunate choice of background (not of my choosing BTW) - below - almost made the poor girl disappear. A little blurred layer and eraser work rescued the shot. As well as allowing a little skin "surgery" at the same time.</p><div></div>

<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>