chanh_nguyen1

What are the lightest tripod and ball head do you recommend? Has anyone had

any experience with Markins M10 and/or any of the Feisol tripods? Thanks for

your input.

For people who want/need to get it...

 

I just stopped by Hooper Camera in Woodland Hills this morning and was

surprised to find out that they have a few bodies still available at $1799. The

feel of the D300 in my hands is great. The LCD looks awesome. Unfortunately I

can't justify getting one right now.

 

It doesn't look like availability is a problem with the D300. Looking forward

to seeing more nice pictures posted here.

I reported the problem autofocusing my 18-200 lens on distant object last month. The camera wouldn't take picture since I set it on Focus Priority and the image wasn't in focus - probably the same reason why your D80 didn't take picture. The root cause may be the SWM. Did you sense any movement of the lens elements at all?

 

I sent the lens to Nikon Service and got it back working beautifully.

I had the same reasoning that it's likely the camera, m rose. If the AFS motor is faulty, the camera shouldn't indicate that focus is good. In fact this was the case with my 18-200 mm VR lens a few weeks ago. The green dot wouldn't lite up in AF. Nikon fixed it and this lens now works as expected on my D200; AF gives sharper images than I can get with my lousy MF. Therefore I am at a loss. I don't have another body (rank amateur) to test this 12-24 zoom.

 

Elliot, did your D200 in question work with your other lenses and only fail with one particular lens? Thanks.

I got my 18-200 lens, which had a problem focusing at infinity, back from Nikon

Service. I tried to test it against the 12-24 and 70-200. The 18-200 now works

great, but I think I have a problem with the 12-24 lens.

 

In AF mode, my D200 seems to focus slightly behind the object with the 12-24. I

get much sharper image by rotating the focus ring slightly after autofocusing

with this lens. I don't have this problem with either the 18-200 or 70-200 AFS

lenses,i.e. I can't improve focusing with manual adjustments on those lens. I

tested both the 12-24 and 18-200 over the 18-24 range at different apertures.

Same results, the AFS motor of the 12-24 seems to work except the camera (or

the lens?) thinks the target is in focus when it is not.

 

Is this a lens or camera problem? Doesn't the camera tell the AFS motor where

to move to until it, the camera, determines that focus is achieved? I am

confused (but somewhat happy) that I only have this AF problem with the 12-24

lens. Could someone help me see what is going on here?

 

At short focal lengths, I have a very tough time judging focus through the VF

for objects farther than a few feet away. I suppose the D200 could be somewhat

fuzzy in deciding focus too, but shouldn't it have the same problem with the 18-

200?

 

Thanks in advance.

I just sent my 18-100 VR zoom lens to Nikon Service. I bought it a year ago. I reported on another thread that AF stopped working for long subject distances. Apparently this is a rare problem for this lens. Not sure if it's related to the SWM.

I have used this lens for almost a year now. It worked fine until a few days

ago. I couldn't use auto focus on distant objects near "infinity". AF at

closer distances and VR both seem OK. Has anyone encountered a similar problem?

Andreas,

 

Thanks very much for the response and the example.

 

Chanh

Joe,

>I find it much faster to achieve focus doing things manually rather than changing the AF sensor point for each image.

 

Is it correct to say that it is matter of convenience, doing thing manually vs. moving AF sensor point, rather than additional control or precision?

 

I did a test. Using MF, I took a shot relying on the in-focus sensor dot. Then I adjusted the focus as slightly as I could to just make the dot turned off and took another shot. My eye couldn't tell the difference in the viewfinder. But the difference is visible when viewed at 100%. If it's just a matter of convenience, I'd rather fool around with the AF sensor point and recomposing than training my aging eyes. But if I can take better pictures with MF ....

 

Chanh

>With the sole exception of fast, continous movement I haven't yet encountered a situation where MF was difficult and AF (F100 and D200) could have saved a shot.

 

Is there a situation where AF doesn't work and MF, by a pro, can save the shot? Recomposing is not a big issue for me. AF at a particular spot on an angled plane is not a problem either unless there is no contrast difference at that spot. But in that case how would you determine that you've got the right focus? Similarly, if you want to have sharp focus at a plane in 3D where there is no physical object (can't do with AF) how can you tell visually? Some time I use the distance scale on the lens to set focus manually, and approximately, at the hyperfocal distance. But that's different from being able to MF using the viewfinder.

 

I guess the key question is whether I am excluded from any photographic possibility by my inability to MF (as I would certainly be if I always shot in P mode).

 

Chanh

Newbie's question: Do you get better focus manually or with AF?

 

Even with the brighter and bigger viewfinder of the D200 (compared to the

D100), I can't consistently get the same sharpness focusing manually as with

AF. My eyes don't seem to resolve sharpness as well as the camera. What's the

advantage of MF for the D200? My impression from reading is that pros prefer

manual focusing when they have time, but I don't know why. My own experience

is that the D200 does a far better job than I can. Is there a technique or

methodology to outdo the camera?

My age and my enthusiasm for photography belie the fact that I have no experience with film. (My madness started with the Coolpix 990.) I often wonder if film provides any photographic capabilities not achievable with digital. I see some posts here about Tri-X (it's a type of film, right?). Can you get the same visual effects by digital post processing?