jkmccarthy
-
Posts
60 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by jkmccarthy
-
-
<p>I would most like to see the X-E1 viewfinder equipped with a "focus confirmation" indicator when used in manual focus mode. That is, still offer the "autofocus" region selection box in manual focus mode, and enable (i.e., operate) the autofocus detection algorithm inside that box. When the user has adjusted a manual focus lens (or the manual focus-by-wire of the XF-lenses) so that the algorithm detects the image inside the "autofocus" box is in sharp focus, provide the user with a visual indication that the manual focus setting is optimum. For example, change the background color of the [MF] marker in the lower left of the viewfinder to green instead of the usual white background...</p>
<p><img src="http://martincastein.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Photo-25-11-2012-14-08-391.jpg" alt="" /> </p>
<p>The viewfinder of my Nikon D200 DSLR has a green indicator light that in autofocus mode confirms the camera has successfully achieved autofocus, but in manual focus mode this same green indicator lights-up to tell me that my manual focusing is sharp at the selected spot in the image. Having the X-E1 operate in an analogous manner would be fantastic -- and presumably simple to implement in firmware using the existing autofocus (detection) capabilities of the X-E1 ... but instead of automatically focusing the lens, simply monitor the image sharpness (or lack thereof) inside the "autofocus" region selection box, and change the background color of the [MF] indicator in the viewfinder when the algorithm determines the image is sharp. (This also seems to me much less visually distracting or intrusive than "focus peaking" or other approaches for confirming manual focusing is sharp).<br>
Thanks !<br>
-- Jim</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>You may also enjoy reading the histories of legendary Nikkor lens design from those who were personally involved, on-line at Nikon's "The Thousand and One Nights" here:</p>
<p>http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/index.htm</p>
<p>Note also the associated glossary of technical terms here:</p>
<p>http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/nwords-e.htm</p>
<p>Enjoy !</p>
<p> -- Jim </p>
-
Montage of 3 selected frames taken during this fly by. Nikon D200, 80-
200mm AF zoom, f/4.5, ISO 400, 1/1000th sec. Thick marine layer
overcast sky.<div>
</div> -
Nikon D200, 1/20th sec f/3.5, ISO 400, no flash. 18-70mm kit lens at
18mm, hand held.<div>
</div> -
<p>If Brent is willing to consider a 35mm film body as backup to his D200, the F100 gets my vote along with those of several other Nikon forum participants -- see for example <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OYTs">this recent thread</a>.</p>
-
<p>Michael> "and it only works on a *limited* number of autofocus bodies."</p>
<p>That's true for the TC-16A out-of-the-box, but it is possible to modify the TC-16A to work with later AF bodies, such as the D200.</p>
<p>This photo.net thread includes a link to the site that explains how:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IaZp">Nikon Forum: Modify TC-16a for use with D200</a></p>
<p>Good luck !</p>
-
Hashim --
Very nice photos with your Sigma 30/1.4 ... but to sway any of the folks in this forum, you'll need to show us crops at 100% scale factor from (for example) the regions indicated below. Thanks !<div>
</div> -
<p>Very interesting! Yes, the ring should "want" to move clockwise as viewed from the front, and (without a lens in place) the "flap" (or "tab" ?) should come to rest in approximately the position circled in yellow above. Installing an AI lens (which you rotate counter-clockwise to install in the bayonet mount, of course) should push the protruding tab counter-clockise some distance. With the lens in place, the more "open" the lens aperture, the farther clockwise (back towards the no-lens position) the meter coupling tab should move. Conversely, the more "stopped down" the lens aperture, the farther counter-clockwise the auto-indexing (AI) feature on the lens should push the meter coupling flap on the camera body.</p>
<p>You reported yesterday that with lens attached and the Nikon FA in Aperture Priority mode (and lens wide open), the meter behaved like the lens was stopped down to its minimum aperture. That implies the meter coupling flap was out-of-position somewhere too far counter-clockwise. With lens wide open, if you can rotate the Nikon FA's black plastic meter coupling ring (to which the flap is attached) by hand -- perhaps with a finger against it at the bottom -- try rotating the ring clockwise (as viewed from the front) until stops. Does this now result in believable shutter speeds in Aperture Priority mode ? And if, with light finger pressure on that ring to mimic "spring loaded" tension, you then stop down the lens, does the meter respond accordingly ?</p>
<p>If everything seems OK except for that ring not being spring-loaded and you are otherwise very pleased(?) with the Nikon FA's condition and price, maybe you'd rather call a local camera repair shop (or Nikon-USA) and inquire as to the cost of replacing the internal spring (a "minor" repair, as repairs go??), then talk to the seller to see what sort of deal they might be willing to work out ?</p>
<p>Best of luck,</p>
<p>--Jim</p>
-
<p>Sorry I wasn't clearer before. I realized after posting the FE2 picture in-line above that neither feature "1" nor "2" called out in red were the meter coupling flap I was talking about. Sounds like this wasn't what confused you, but for others' future reference, I'm reposting that picture below with the piece in question circled in yellow.</p>
<p>Basically, my speculation was that the protruding black plastic piece on the camera body was no longer protruding, and hence the rotating the aperture ring on the AI lens was not engaging this piece (and your lens aperture setting wasn't being communicated to the camera body). But if the black plastic piece protrudes far enough to be "pushed around" when the aperture ring on the lens is rotated, then my speculation about your Nikon FA metering problem is wrong.</p>
<p>Your reply does prompt another question, however. The ring to which this protruding piece is attached should also be "spring loaded" making it want to go clockwise (as viewed from the front, with the lens removed, like in the picture below). Maybe I'm reading too much into your comment that "it will freely move" and/or "it is a little loose". But, if the ring isn't spring loaded, then here again, your lens aperture setting won't be sensed by the camera body since this relies on the black plastic "meter coupling" flap tracking the AI coupling ridge on the rear of the lens.</p>
<p>Again, my speculations could be (probably are) wrong when it comes to the root cause of your metering problem. If the flap is intact and the ring it protrudes from is spring-loaded, that ring will be rotated (as it's supposed to be) when you set the aperture on your AI lens. What happens next inside the camera body (e.g., gear train and electronic circuitry) is unexplored territory for me, so I can't be of any further help, provided the exterior mechanical parts seem to be okay.</p>
<p>Anyway, best wishes on your refund and finding another.</p>
<p>--Jim</p><div>
</div> -
Here's another reference photo (this one an FE2 -- similar to the FA in having fixed black plastic AI coupling flap) that gives one an idea how far outward this flap should extend, unless broken off or otherwise damaged.<div></div>
-
<p>... So it doesn't sound like the "matrix metering" logic is at fault, but rather the AI (automatic indexing) coupling ring (or circuitry behind it) that's supposed to tell the meter how much the lens aperture is stopped down (even though aperture remains wide open for brightest view in viewfinder). If the camera body was a Nikkormat FT3 or FM or FE (to name just a few), my suggestion would be to check whether the metal AI coupling flap was in the down (engaged) or up (disengaged - for non-AI lens) position:</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikkormat/fseries/ft3/lenscoupling.htm">Nikon FT3 lens coupling</a> (see "Coupling Lever Release" in bottom photo)
</p>
<p>...but sadly on the FA the AI coupling flap is black plastic and fixed in the down position. So next question I suppose is whether this black plastic flap on your Nikon FA might be broken off ? (Had a previous owner tried to force a non-AI lens onto the body, it's possible the AI coupling flap could be broken.) Here's another FT3 reference photo that shows the coupling lever in chrome against a black body (just above "t" in Nikkormat in this photo), showing how far forward the coupling flap is supposed to extend:</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikkormat/fseries/ft3/khokingFT3/nikkormat_ft3_04.JPG">Nikkormat FT3 top front view</a></p>
<p>But if the coupling flap is intact, then the problem must be internal ... sorry.</p>
<p>The Nikon FA is a wonderful and feature-rich camera, so if you do end up returning this one to the seller, I hope you find another one and get to enjoy using it !</p>
<p>--Jim</p>
-
<p>Oops ... if the Nikon MyPictureTown link shows you only 16 thumbnails per page, you'll need to skip ahead to page 14 of 29. Sorry.</p>
-
<p>My wife and I visited Seward in June 2007. Photographic highlight for me was the Kenai Fjords 6-hour National Park tour ... see the fifth of Dan Hall's "a few other links that may be of interest" above. Photos from our trip are here:</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.mypicturetown.com/P2PwebCmdController/pictureBank/share.html?x=tKr5a1tl009pE4X**lE5dcfXt-7FkVDGf%2525o8CSOksmt6UcUX46n-EbK%2526bMB63FghD%2525gtR2RxnRD9eTheciPkPBLj45x_5lOLK_%2525G8bJX5N6HD%2525Z">Nikon MyPictureTown</a>
</p>
<p>The Kenai Fjords boat tour photos start on page 4 of 8. Feel free to e-mail me for location details of any of the other photos.</p>
<p>--Jim</p>
-
<p>This may or may not help, but have you tried switching between "matrix metering" and "center-weighted metering" using the pushbutton switch on the front lower right side (from behind, i.e., from the viewfinder eyepiece -- front lower left if you're looking at the camera from the front) ? See Figure 1 here:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Try the switch in both positions and report results to the seller before you return the camera body.</p>
<p>--Jim</p>
-
<p>To better understand Edward's advice against TTL, I think the outstanding post by Bill Smith in this older photo.net thread (3rd reply down the page) is well worth reading:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0009GK">...flash exposure control</a></p>
<p>Bill's 1998 post is a great explanation of manual (guide number or GN), automatic, TTL (through the lens), and "3D Matrix Balanced Fill Flash" approaches.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p> -- Jim </p>
-
Regarding Darren's question, I certainly agree with Bert about a dark site being important. But I'd also like to raise D200 ISO setting and lens f/ratio and focal length as other factors that can greatly influence star trail photos. (I'd also be interested to know these details for Bert's "Not Nearly Long Enough Star Trails" example image at the top of this thread).
ISO setting is fairly obvious ... higher ISO makes fainter stars AND the sky background brighter, along with increased noise. "Long Exposure NR" in the D200 subtracts a shutter closed (dark) exposure of equal duration from the shutter open (star trail) exposure, and this effectively removes "hot pixels" and pixel-to-pixel variations in CCD "dark current", but not the dark current shot noise. (As an aside, it will also remove the purple haze from the upper two corners in Bert's example photo -- see also the link Tito provided to Ken Rockwell's web site).
The brightness of the sky background is inversely proportional to the
square of the lens f/ratio, meaning at a given ISO speed, you can expose longer at slower f/number and achieve the same sky background surface brightness: e.g., the you can expose twice as long at f/4.0 than at f/2.8, and have equal surface brightness in the sky background. But the down side is that the faintest stars recorded will be twice as bright (i.e., much fewer in number at the slower f/ratio), because the collecting area of the lens aperture is also cut in half at f/4.0 compared to f/2.8 (for a given focal length lens).
While sky brightness is independent of lens focal length (it depends ONLY on "1 over f/number" squared, ISO, and exposure time), the signal from the stars themselves (recorded as point sources) depends on the collecting area of the lens aperture: an 18mm lens at f/4.0 has only one quarter the collecting area of a 35mm lens at f/4.0 so at a given f/ratio, fainter stars can be recorded with a longer focal length lens, and collecting AREA scales as lens diameter squared (or as focal length squared, with f/ratio, ISO, and exposure time held constant).
But in the case of star TRAILS (as opposed to TRACKING the stars during the exposure to counter-act for the earth's rotation), lens focal length also determines [together with location in the sky] how long a star's image remains on a given pixel, before earth rotation moves the star's image to the next pixel. So while it's true that for TRACKING the stars the gain in collecting area (as focal length squared, for a given f/ratio) directly translates into ability to detect fainter stars, for star TRAILS the gain is only proportional to focal length itself (not focal length squared) because time a star spends on a given pixel is inversely proportional to focal length.
Back to Bert's original question, the up-side is that (in addition to recording fainter stars relative to the sky background at a given f/ratio and ISO) a longer focal length lens will also yield star trails of longer length, all other things being equal. But artistically, the challenge of composing a photograph of star trails with terrestial objects in the foreground becomes more difficult with a longer focal length lens. Since the elevation angle (above the horizon) of the celestial pole is equal to the latitude of your location, it's not as simple as backing away from your desired foreground object(s) and using your longest focal length lens, assuming you still want the celestial pole in the shot ... so there are limits as to how much a longer focal length lens will help you. But nevertheless I still think it helps to understand the inter-relationships of exposure time, ISO, f/ratio, and lens focal length, to get the shot you're after.
So bottom line is try using the longest focal length you can get away with given the artistic constraints on composition, and avoid putting the celestial pole in the center of the shot if you don't need to, artistically. Also remember sky brightness recorded depends *only* on "1 over f/number" squared, ISO, and exposure time (not on lens focal length). Lengths of the star trails are proportional to exposure time and lens focal length and distance from the celestial pole. And finally, the brightness of a star's trail is proportional to ISO and focal length divided by "f/number squared".
Hope this helps,
-- Jim
-
D3 Preview
in Nikon
<p>Save yourself the time of sitting through someone's lo-res YouTube slideshow to music, and see the same D3 press release images as thumbnails here:</p>
<p><a href="http://press.nikonusa.com/gallery/product.php?c=nikon/Digital_SLR/D3/">NikonUSA D3 Product Images</a></p>
<p>...that can be clicked for web-size views and/or hi-res images.</p>
<p>Enjoy,</p>
<p>--Jim</p>
-
<p>Hi Simon -- </p>
<p>See this photo.net thread:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IaZp">Nikon Forum: Modify TC-16a for use with D200</a></p>
<p>I am not sure whether your D80 behaves similarly to the D100 / D200 bodies that reportedly work with this modification.</p>
<p>Good luck!</p>
<p> --Jim</p>
-
The attached will give you an idea of the extent of the full frame from which the previous image was cropped. The Nikkor ED 180mm f/2.8 and TC-14A combination is impressively sharp indeed.<div></div>
-
I have used the 180mm f/2.8 ED manual focus lens and TC-14A together on my Nikon D200 with great success. The resulting 252mm focal length yields a 35mm film equivalent field-of-view of 378mm at f/4. Digital photos with this combination are sharp enough to tolerate cropping very well up to 1 display pixel per CCD pixel, as in the attached example.<div></div>
-
I was out in my backyard last night also trying to capture some (any!) of the Perseid meteors with my Nikon D200. From Los Angeles only the brightest were visible to the unaided eye, given the strong light pollution, but after reviewing my photographs this morning I thought I'd compare notes with others here:
(1) I'd selected the widest angle lens I had, in order to cover the largest fraction of the sky possible. In my case, this was an 18-70mm zoom set at 18mm focal length.
(2) For a given lens, the widest aperture admits the most light in order to have the best chance at capturing meteors, so this meant f/3.5.
(3) My night sky was least light polluted (darkest) straight overhead, so that's where I pointed the camera. Meteor showers have a "radiant" point (for the Perseids, this is in the constellation Perseus) from which the meteor paths originate if traced backward, but the meteors themselves can appear in almost any part of the sky.
(4) Light pollution and wide-open lens meant that the sky background level would saturate the CCD if I tried a long exposure (e.g., several minutes -- long enough to record star trails due to earth's rotation) at the highest ISO speeds. I ended up settling on 30sec exposures at ISO=400 ... less noise than 800 or 1600 ... as this showed stars fainter than I could see visually, and small very short star trails, and a sky background that was visible not too bright to overwhelm the stars.
(5) "Auto" white balance gave a dark steel gray sky, while "Sunlight" white balance (the Sun is a star, afterall) gave more realistic star colors BUT recorded the sky as glowing dull orange (probably true, due to light pollution from high and low pressure sodium lamp streetlights). I shot "JPG Fine + RAW", so can revisit the white balance after-the-fact.
End result ? There were several meteors I saw visually while the shutter was open that I did not see captured when reviewing the photos. My recollection is also that the several airplanes that flew overhead were brighter to me visually than their tracks in the digital pictures ... but it's meanwhile true that the digital camera recorded fainter stars than I could see visually.
I think the explanation is the 30sec time exposure: the stars moved several CCD pixels (about 5) in 30sec, so took ~6sec to cross a given pixel (or more taking the point spread function into account). But airplanes and meteors would cross a given pixel in a fraction of a second, putting the CCD digital camera at a disadvantage relative to what my eye saw of planes and meteors, compared to the stars.
So in hindsight, I think a faster ISO setting (or a prime lens with wider maximum aperture) would have given me better results. Keeping the sky background from getting too bright at higher ISO or faster aperture would require either shorter exposures or driving to a location a darker sky.
Does this agree with other people's experience ?
Thanks for your comments,
-- Jim<div>
</div> -
<p>I'm interested in experience of other photo.net folks with this lens. Reading the reviews on-line here:</p>
<p>... it appears that Sigma's quality control leaves something to be desired -- several folks who contributed reviews had to send their first lens back to Sigma for problems related to image quality ("soft" focus), before ultimately getting a "tack sharp" replacement lens. Comments from the photo.net community ? Has anyone tested their Sigma 24-70 against a comparable Nikon (18-70 or ?) ??</p>
<p>But getting back to Tommy's question, the larger the aperture opening (the smaller the f-number), the less depth of field any camera lens will provide. What are you comparing it to, when you say depth of field is not as good as it should be ? (Two lenses having [or set to] the same focal length and f/stop ?)</p>
-
<p>Dave --</p>
<p>Personally I am biased towards "A" mode so that I have full control over depth-of-field, and I keep an eye on the shutter speed and manually increase ISO if it gets too slow for a particular hand-held shot. The tripod suggestion above is of course another approach, but usually I'm not hiking alone or with other shutterbugs, so stopping to setup a tripod and compose a shot would unacceptably slow down my hiking companion (i.e., my spouse's patience has its limits, especially when it comes to my perfectionist tendancy to "fiddle" [endlessly??] with camera setup and controls). So "A" mode, matrix metering, and (usually minus) EV correction is for me a good compromise (balance) between auto Program and Manual modes, with ISO increase upward from 200 as infrequently as possible.</p>
<p>Has no one above mentioned White Balance? On a recent Alaska vacation (and being new to D200, having only Nikon film cameras previously), I was shooting JPG only (not RAW) and hence WB setting was certainly something to pay attention to in the woods. With broken patches of early morning sun, my WB preference was for "Cloudy" rather than "Shade" ... see thumbnail below of one of my favorites from this recent trip, uploaded into my portfolio yesterday for other to critique. Comments welcome (follow link below), and feel free also to look at the picture "Details" page for other camera and exposure settings used for this shot.</p>
<p>But most of all, enjoy your time hiking in the woods !</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>--Jim</p>
<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00LZZt&photo_id=6102535&photo_sel_index=0">Critique this photo and/or view Details</a><div>
</div> -
<p>Seven months later ... I'm eager to know, has anyone performed this mod and afterward had success using TC-16A with their D200 ?</p>
<p>Can a TC-16A modified like that still be used with an N2020 as originally intended, or is this an either/or choice ?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance for any insights/experiences ...</p>
<p> --Jim</p>
What would you change if you could on the Xpro1 and XE1 cameras?
in Mirrorless Digital Cameras
Posted