Rick Waller

November 18, 2014

I have personally never understood the need for a head on a monopod. If you are using the 70-200 with a collar, you go horiz to vert easily. If you mount a non collared lens, it is easy to simply move the stick left/right/up/down for most applications. But I imagine that if you are using the gear to shoot a bird up in a tree, a front back tilt may be useful.

If you do decide that you need a head, the best one I know of is http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N=10554098&InitialSearch=yes&sts=pi

It is front/back only.

If your budget is only $40 and decide you need a full function ballhead, then I am not sure you will find a suitable ballhead that will support much weight.

Good luck

November 8, 2014

I have not used the Giotto or Benbo, but know of folks who do and they are pleased with them. Buying a monopod is not as difficult as buying a lens or a body. If the legs will hold the weight you plan on mounting without collapsing and if the extended and folded size and the weight works for you, there is not a whole lot else to worry about. It's not like a monopod has an onboard computer or glass optical parts and such. It is a stick and if the stick is stable, able to support the weight and sized right, what else is there? I prefer twist leg locks (they do not need tightening which is occasionally necessary with lever locks) and prefer carbon fiber because it is lighter. But those features will bump up the price and are not critical. If you are a hobbyist or photo enthusiast, then the loosening of flip locks is not that big a deal. But if you shoot sideline sports, you need to know that when you tighten a leg lock, it will stay tight. I also prefer fewer leg sections for ease in setting up and closing down and the thicker diameter bottom section (for more stability), but fewer leg sections often translate into longer folded length and lower section diameter is less a problem with a monopod than with a tripod.

November 8, 2014

Try these -

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/687350-REG/Oben_ACM_2400_ACM_2400_4_Section_Aluminum_Monopod.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5480-REG/Manfrotto_681B_681B_3_Section_Monopod.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/743968-REG/Benro_A49F_A49F_Classic_Aluminum_Monopod.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/373785-REG/Giottos_MM9180_MM9180_5_Section_Pro_Monopod.html

October 30, 2014

Since you are a nikon shooter, look at the 24-120/4. It will blow the doors off of the 28-300 optically and is faster. For times where I cannot carry the holy trinity (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200), this is my go to walk around lens.

October 10, 2014

No argument with Joe about the splendor of Yosemite - truly memorable, but I have to disagree with the idea of taking in that park when on an LV trip. I respectfully suggest that it is just too far away for practical purposes.

On the other hand, if this is your once in a lifetime visit to the US, then you will have to decide whether Yosemite is "better" than the red rock southwest. If you ask 100 travelers which is better - Yosemite, Yellowstone or the desert - you will get many varied responses. Personally, Yellowstone is my favorite spot in the US.

Yosemite's splendor, while undeniably sensational. is completely different from the vistas in the SW. And as others have pointed out, the entire drive from LV anywhere through AZ, UT and NM is just one continuous photo op, ableit red rock, red rock and more red rock. The drive to Yosemite is far different. Spelndid sightseeing along the way, especially in the Sierra's, but a totally different kind of scenery. Again - which you will prefer cannot be determined by anyone but you.

But you are going to be based in LV - your airfare and hotels are presumably booked. I would suggest staying in the general vicinity.

October 9, 2014

Jairo - those blogs (SW and MV) are the best I have seen on these subjects. Great, practical advice and stunning photography. Well done - will be a useful tool for anyone contemplating that trip.

October 9, 2014

Well - there aren't a lot of choices in that neighborhood. The town is Kayenta AZ and calling it a "town" is generous. It is more like an intersection on which sits a couple of hotels, gas stations, etc. A buddy of mine stayed at the Hampton Hotel there and found it adequate. It really doesn't matter too much except for cleanliness since there is absolutely nothing to do there other than see MV. You can try one of those hotels and sign up for a tour with Gouldings.

I would try to put myself on a waiting list at Goulding;s or call them regularly to check on cancellations.

by the way - if you have not already checked it out, Ruby's Inn is the place to stay at Bryce.

October 9, 2014

In my experience, Monument Valley is seen via a tour. A one day tour is generally sufficient so I think a third day there would be a poor use of valuable time. Are you planning on staying at Gouding's? If so, why not give them a call and see what they suggest?

October 8, 2014

Great recommendation Dieter. I totally forgot about that lens. A couple of years ago, I was traveling in the desert and did not want to lug my D3 and 24-70 and did not yet own the new 24-120. I grabbed the 28-105 that has been on my shelf for the past 25 years, slapped it on a D700 and used it as a lightweight walking around lens.

I was extremely pleased with that old time favorite. This was a pleasure trip and most of the shooting I did was people shots in the street. Take a look at a few of the selected shots from that trip. By the way - you can purchase that 28-105 lens these days for less than $200. <img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-I3_GDHoWMEU/VDXgYnY1LII/AAAAAAAAFWY/GRmWKJ0naCo/w382-h477/_DSC9753tighter%5B1%5D.jpg" alt="" /> <img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lJkqysMw3Og/VDXgPRgHA3I/AAAAAAAAFWA/GkE8nV7r0_Q/w382-h534/_DSC9645%2Btighter%5B1%5D.jpg" alt="" />

October 8, 2014

Count me in the group that thinks the older 2 versions of the 24-120 pretty much sucked. I had the misfortune of owning both (still have the 2nd one - no one wants to buy it no matter how much I reduce the price) and those lenses did not work well on any camera. Just not sharp - at any focal length, in the center, on the sides, - nowhere. Even at f8. Those lenses are turkeys. If someone says they got a good copy - well perhaps there were 1 or 2 out there, but based on my personal experience and the volumes of negative reviews, I would not take the chance.

Now the new 3rd version f/4 is an entirely different animal. Yeah - I bought that one too. It is a winner. An excellent lens that I use in cases where I need a walking around one lens solution that is longer than my beloved 24-70/2.8.

Incidentally, if you are hell bent on buying the earlier version - give me a yell. I will sell you mine for $150. Just don't complain if it produces crappy photos.

October 7, 2014

The itinerary that Kenneth suggested is the classic loop in that neighborhood. Depending on your interests, you might want to investigate a couple of other locations which are equally interesting, but you will have to whittle your list down. You can't see them all in a relaxing 2 weeks. I suggest that you strongly consider Canyon de Chelly - I have found that to be the least crowded example of red rock sights. Or - another spectacular day may be spent in Monument Valley, AZ. If you have ever watched a US cowboy movie with John Wayne, you will instantly recognize Monument Valley. Both are reasobly close to LaKe Powell which was recommended above. If you prefer to see red rock from a boat, Lake Powell in the place to be, but unless you are willing to rent a boat for the day, you might not enjoy Lake Powell as much as some of the other locales. By the way, Lake Powell is the place to stay if you intend to do the Antelope slot canyons, but in the past decade, the slots have been just too crowded to do any serious photography. If you go to Monument Valley, you want to hire on to a guided day trip out of Goulding's ranch. I personally find MV to be one of the more breathtaking spots on the planet. Great diversity in red rock "monuments", all sorts of sand dunes, critters and Native American folks.

If you want something truly different from the typical red rock vistas and don't mind the additional drive, you might want to look into Durango CO. It may be a bit too far for your taste, but keep in mind that the roads are wide open and speed limits quite high so don't necessarily discount a locale based on the number of miles between destinations. You will be driving at a good rate of speed. The attraction in Durango is the narrow gauge steam railroad trip into the San Juan mountains. Train goes from Durango up the mountain to Silverton. A sensational sightseeing/photo opportunity. If you happen to do this trip, take the train up and the bus back. It will save you about 2 hours - the bus is a short ride back while the train returns over the same tracks and take way longer. Completely different scenery in that part of the country compared to the Red Rocks.

I also mention Sedona AZ if time and route permits. Near Grand Canyon and again, lots of red rock scenery. And of course there is a famous red rock Canyon just 17 miles from the Vegas Strip.

Trick is not to overdose on red rocks. To that end, Zion, lake Powell (if you are willing to rent a boat) and Durango offer alternatives to red rocks.

Last point - while I understand your desire not to live out of a suitcase, some locations lend themselves better to longer stays than others. I have found that one night is sufficient at Grand Canyon unless you want to take a mule ride down to the bottom. One night is generally sufficient at Bryce also due to the small size of the park itself. The trick at Bryce is to spend some time around the rim of the canyon and then time on the floor. Two entirely different perspectives of the park that are mandatory. But it is a small park. If you go to Bryce, the place to stay is Ruby's Inn which is right at the edge of the park. Don't need more than one night at Lake Powell either, unless you just want to relax for a few days and enjoy the gorgeous lake itself or go to the slots.

You will love that part of the US. The scenery is breathtaking almost anywhere you visit. Google the sites I mentioned.

September 23, 2014

"Not if you are a photographer. They in most cases, let you leave the tripod at home."

I can think of many reasons for and against the 2.8 glass, but leaving the tripod home is most assuredly not one of them. An extra stop or so of light is going to allow you leave home without a tripod? What do you do without your tripod when you want some depth of field in your shot? How does 2.8 help there? For that matter, how does f/4 help there? I am always puzzled by those who tout a fast lens as an alternative to a tripod.

I can certainly understand the appeal in traveling without lugging a tripod and head, but these days, the way to do that is to have a modern DSLR that allows one to crank up the ISO. I am a Nikon shooter and my bodies allow me to shoot with no worries at all up 6400 and, if necessary I won't hesitate to go higher. Canon too has sensors that provide excellent quality at hi-iso.

In my experience, a fast lens is useful to provide the ability to restrict DOF or to allow for faster focus in AF or easier focus in MF, especially in low light. Those are pretty good reasons to take along the 2.8. If your back can handle it.

September 12, 2014

While it certainly cannot hurt to clean the contacts, if the lens is a new one, I would doubt that the problem is a dirty contact. Can you take the lens to a camera shop and try it on a different Nikon body?

September 11, 2014

Another vote here for a look at the new Nikon 80-400. It isn't inexpensive, but it certainly is far cheaper than a 400/2.8, much lighter and convenient to carry and an excellent peformer. The original 80-400 was not bad optically, but I could grow a beard waiting for it to AF. Made it a non-option for me. The new version is quite sharp at 400 and the AF (both speed and accuracy) is excellent.

I own a 400/2.8 which is my bread and butter sports lens, but I bought the 80-400 earlier this year for times I need to have 400mm and cannot, or don't want to, lug the big one. By the way - the 80-400 is easily handholdable. At my age, there is no way to handhold the 400/2.8.

August 14, 2014

While I agree that Todos Santos can be interesting (actually, the drive to and from through the desert with the Saguaros filled with buzzards can be the best part), it really would blow a full day out of a 3 day wedding weekend.

I recommend staying in the 2 towns - there is a lot to photograph and there is a regular bus between CSL and San Jose del Cabo. Or just grab a cab - it is about a 20 minute ride (in the cab). If you are young and like to party and drink - CSL is the place to hang. It is essentially a young people's town with spectacular beaches and lots of very photogenic beach bunnies. Hit the bar scene in the evening for lots of booze fueled revelling.

I prefer San Jose Del Cabo - far quieter and more artsy than CSL. Excellent restaurants and, as the fellow above said, lots of interesting street photography. The 2 Cabos are about as different as one can imagine. CSL is one giant party with a lot of drinking and night life. SDC is far more restrained and quieter (or as my sons say, "boring"). I consider the shopping in SDC to be better unless you are looking to buy swimwear or souvenier shot glasses.

By all means - be sure to see both and I would save the rest of Baha for a visit when you have more time.

Incidentally, there are several turnouts and restaurants along the road where you can set up for an evening shot of the famous CSL stone arch.

First shot is on the way to Todos Santos. If you go, I would not recommend lying stationary along the road for more than a minute or so. You might end up being mistaken for road kill.

Second shot is from just south of the Hilton between the 2 Cabos looking south toward CSL. Arch on the far left.

August 11, 2014

"IMO the Nikon 105/2.5 manual focus lens is among the greatest slr lenses ever made"

+1.

August 11, 2014

Folks - arguing about the wisdom of either Nikon's marketing/pricing policies or US trade restrictions has absolutely NOTHING to do with the guy's question. I suggest that if you want to rant about either, open a separate thread rather than hijack the OP's post.

to the point at hand - will personally never buy a gray product if it includes any sort of internal computerization or complex gearing or anything along those lines. But in the case of a grip, which is nothing more than an enclosure for some batteries and has few parts destined to fail? I would have no problem going gray. As someone above pointed out - while a grip can thoeretically go bad, paying $50 for "insurance" against a $380 item may be seen as excessively expensive. Only you can decide.

And - if it makes the decision any easier, APS that was recommended by Helen is an exceptional repair service. I am an NPS member and in cases where I need non-warranty work done (or work that Nikon Melville may charge for), I do not hesitate to send my gear to Chicago. The work is excellent, the turn around is fast and the price is competitive.

August 11, 2014

".......but rather tact <a id="itxthook3" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cl6t" rel="nofollow">sharp picture<img id="itxthook3icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> at f/8" If you are planning to shoot at f8, almost ANY Nikon lens will produce an excellent, tack sharp photo. Why on earth would you seek out a heavy 1.4 lens if you are not opening up the aperture. My advice if you are not satified with your 105/2.5 (not quite sure why you are not in love with that lens) and insist on an 85mm lens, is to buy either the 85/1.4 AF-D to save money, or for that matter, the 85/1.8 AF-D which is smaller, lighter and far less money. If you are shooting at f8 - what is the compelling reason to buy a fast lens?

August 8, 2014

Deleted - it is NOT available, Sorry to have gotten your hopes up if you read the post a moment ago.

August 5, 2014

Andrew - Never knew any of the science. I suppose I have simply been blissfully ignorant and never noticing that the camera won't focus at the edges. To the best of my knowledge, I have never attempted AF on the fringes beyond the AF points. I have explained my technique when shooting moving subjects and apparently the panning effect mitigates the problem since I cannot think of a single time that I intentionally panned with the camera and allowed the subject to be beyond the AF points.

For times when I am shooting in static mode, I will select an AF point, place it over the preferred focus subject and then shoot. So again - I never noticed that there was a problem. I did however notice that the outer AF points are not as sensitive in AF ability as the center point. Many years ago, when I first learned to shoot with an AF camera (F5 if I recall), I would simply place the center AF point over the intended area of focus, locked the focus and then recomposed as necessary to achieve the framing I desired. That way I always knew that the camera was AF'ing to its best ability and didn't worry that some outer points might not be as effective. Still do it often today.

It is sort of like the early days of in camera metering where it was center weighted (or spot if I go back to the original Pentax) only. To get best exposure, when possible we walked right up to the subject, metered the scene and then stepped back to recompose keeping the aperture and shutter where it was when we got in close.

Interesting conversation. My apologies for dragging the thread off the original poster's topic, but I never miss an opportunity to learn something new.

August 5, 2014

Hmmmm Andrew. Did not know that. I will have to fool around with my D3 and D3s a bit to see if I can replicate the effect. Are you saying that once I lock on the focus with say the center point and the subject moves to the edge of the frame, beyond the farthest sensor, the camera will lose AF? If this is so, in practical terms for my shooting, it makes no difference since when shooting fast moving atheletes, once I lock on the initial focus, I almost always pan with the camera so that the subject is always within the actual AF point array. Either I have never allowed a moving subject to get out beyond the outer AF points, or if I did and got poor results, did not understand what was occurring and attributed the blown shots to poor technique on my part.

I guess we are never to old to learn. I am going to go out and try out your explanation. Fascinating.

August 4, 2014

"My one concern about a D3 or later is that the coverage of AF points seemed to be an issue. They are much more spread across the frame on a DX camera dues to the mirror box geometry"

Out of curiousity, why does the distance between the AF points matter? When shooting in single focus mode, I just place the point (whichever one I choose) over the point of critical focus. When shooting in continuous "follow focus", I place the center point over the desired area of focus and the machine does its thing handing off the focus to whichever point it decides it needs to. I shoot sideline sports and began with a D2h and a D2x, which were of course DX bodies and graduated up to the D3 when it came out and never noticed one bit of difference in the focusing. If anything, while I never shot with DX and FX at the same time, my impression was that the AF in the D3 was better than that in the DX bodies.

Not disagreeing with your comment - just trying to understand the issue. It is something that never crossed my mind.

August 2, 2014

"These lens are all Nikon either full frame or DX lens"

Now that you are considering the D3, I remain confused about your statement in your original post. Are you implying that all of the lenses you mention may be used on both DX and FX? Or are you saying that your wish list contains some DX lenses and some FX lenses.

If it is the former, I think you may be mistaked since to the best of my knowledge, neither the 17-55 nor the 18-200 is much use on an FX body. If it is the latter, then I don't understand a list of lenses that are exclusive to different bodies and, if fulfilled, would necessitate owning both an fx and dx body.

On the subject of lenses, I was a big fan of the 200-400/4 lens until I picked up the new 80-400. The 80-400 is much smaller and easier to carry than the 200-400 and I find the image quality to be equal or better than the the bigger lens as long as you shoot with a newer body that can handle the higher ISO's that are necessary due to the slower lens. (By the way - neither of those lenses can match the optical quality and speed of the 400/2.8, but they are certainly more convenient to carry and can be handheld.) If I have the luxury of being able to handle the size of the prime 400 and use a monopod or tripod, I always reach for the prime.) And the wider end of the 80-400 is more useful than the wide end of the 200-400. I sold my 200-400.

As far as the 18-200 (or the FX 28-300 version) - while it may serve as a one lens walk around when weight and bulk is a factor, it really is a pretty poor lens, especially at the long end. I suppose that pro street shooters or anyone that simply needs a "record shot" of an event may be find the compromise something to "live with", but it just isn't anywhere in the league of the other glass in your bucket list. If you want an excellent "walking around lens", take a look at the 24-120/4 lens. The newest version - not the old ones which were garbage. I know guys who have sold their 24-70's and now rely on the 24-120. I use both, by the way.

Good luck no matter which way you go.

July 31, 2014

"Also I have to stop using my current - for 10 years or more - alcohol solution."

First rule in using a cleaning fluid on anything photo related is to lightly moisten the wipe and apply to lens or filter. NEVER apply solution directly onto the surface to be cleaned. It will migrate. In your case, if this was the cause of your problem, consider yourself lucky. The filter is relatively inexpensive. I have seen cases where a photog squirted cleaning solution directly on to a lens only to discover that it seeped into the inner workings of the zoom. That was an expensive lesson. For that matter, suggest using fluid as a last resort when other cleaning methods fail. I can clean up 85% of anything on my filters or lens elements with breath on the surface and a micro fiber cloth or a Lens Pen only. I find that I seldom need anything more than that. I bought a 2 or 3 oz bottle of Eclipse 5 or more years ago and it is probably 75% full right now.

July 31, 2014

Count me in the corner with those who would not get the D2h or D2x. As many have mentioned above, the technology is ancient compared to the new bodies. I used both bodies extensively when they were the ones to own. D2h first, then D2x and I loved both. You are correct that they feel and handle like true pro bodies and were rugged as could be expected for what is essentially a computer masquerading as a camera. (robust yes, but not like my F2, F4 and F5 which you can drive nails with)

You also mention that you shoot the D2h at up to 800. Obviously, everyone has different limits of tolerance, but I always thought that anything north of 400 was unacceptable in the D2x.

My suggestion, echoing the others, is to step up to the plate and get a "modern" body. D-3 is a sensational body and I routinely shoot at ISO (you give away your age when you refer to ASA)6400 with the D3. Since they are now replaced by D3s and D4, they are plentiful on the resale market and quite reasonably priced. If you don't want to blow the asking price on a used D3, consider the D700 with a grip. Very similar to the D3, but not quite as well built. Unless you are exceptionally hard on your gear, you should not have any issues with the D700 compared to D3 in terms of build.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by Rick Waller