jlevin

I use an L-bracket with my D300 to facilitate work on a tripod. I have no reason to ever remove the L-bracket, but in addition I have never had reason to use a battery pack. It occurred to me that trying to use both a battery pack and an L-bracket with a D7200 might not work because the two parts might be incompatible with each other. However, I have read that L-brackets can be made to accommodate battery packs. So I assume no one has found a problem with the D7200 with respect to this matter?

Charles, thanks for that unequivocal response. Just out of curiosity, would you have replaced the D300 with a D500

instead if you could have? Are you primarily a landscape shooter, a wildlife shooter, or both? Thanks.

Thanks very much for everyone's input. There seems to be agreement that the D7200's advantages over the D300

include a better dynamic range and much improved low light performance. While the build quality is fine, the small size of

the D7200 is may be an issue for some people. Also, Shun pointed out that the D300 does not have a backup memory

card slot. He also said out that if one doesn't like the handling (e.g. smaller size) of the D7200, the D500 is an alternative.

 

I would just like to mention that as someone with back issues, lugging around heavy FX equipment would put me in

permanent physical therapy. Hence, my need for DX equipment. Also, as far as wide angle landscape photography is

concerned, Nikon makes a 10-24mm lens, which is equivalent to 15mm on the wide side. (I personally still use the 12-

24mm). There is also the Tokina 11-20mm that Dieter Schaefer mentioned.

 

Thanks for this extremely valuable information.

I have been shooting with my Nikon D300 ever since it first appeared. I have no interest in shooting with anything but DX. Now that the

D500 has been out and widely reviewed, I have decided that it is probably not for me. My primary interests are landscapes and

occasional macro. The D500 appears to have been developed to appeal to wildlife and sports enthusiasts. It would be like buying a

mansion and only occupying two of the rooms.

 

I have now looked somewhat more carefully at the D7200, but I'm not convinced it has great advantages over my D300 other than

producing much larger prints and better ability to crop. I have never complained about image quality from my D300, and I have always

felt that it had excellent build.. So "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", or is there a reason I should consider the D7200 more carefully? I saw it at

a local Costco, and it seemed a bit small and has been described by most reviewers as a consumer camera.

 

Thanks for any input.

According to Thom Hogan, the Nikon SB-500 speedlight can be used in commander mode with the Nikon D500. It costs

$246.95 at B&H. I have also now read in several places that the Nikon SU-800 mentioned by Shun also works with the

Nikon D500. It sells for $249.00 at B&H. These strike me as being the safest (not using cheap clones) and least

expensive ways for accomplishing standard off-camera wireless flash. I still would prefer the convenience of a pop-up

flash as the commander, as my D300 has, to avoid laying out around $250, adding to the effective price of the D500, but I

guess this is the price of making the D500 a better built camera.

For anyone interested, I just came across another solution to the no pop-up flash problem of the Nikon D500.

 

http://www.ishootshows.com/2016/01/05/shooting-impressions-on-assignment-with-the-nikon-d500-and-sb-5000/

 

The new SB-5000 ($596.95) can be used wirelessly and controlled through a flash options menu on the D500 and a

function button. The Nikon SU-800 recommended by Shun is still a cheaper option for me ($249), especially given my

somewhat limited uses for flash anyway. As for RF triggers, I am totally ignorant and reluctant to start up a new learning

curve!

Shun, thanks for the information. I would probably be interested in the SU-800 controller as a substitute for the non-

existent built-in flash if reasonably priced. I only want to use wireless flash occasionally for landscapes (perhaps main

flash and balanced flash too). It definitely sounds like the WR-10 set is not what I want. Thanks for this information.

 

The information that I read concerning the D500's lack of a built-in flash is from Thom Hogan on January 14:

 

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-missing-flash-on-the.html

I have been a long time user of a Nikon D300, which has a built-in flash that I use as a commander with an SB-600 speedlight primarily

for fill flash. I am considering upgrading to a Nikon D500, which I understand does not have a built-in flash. Instead, Nikon sells a WR-10

wireless remote controller set ($219.95 at Amazon). Do I also have to purchase Nikon's new SB-5000 speedlight for this to work, or can I

still use my SB-600, which I would prefer to retain?

 

Thank you very much.

 

Jay Levin

The Shaw books are outdated (although still highly useful in many respects) since they were written during the film era. Easily the best

book today is John and Barbara Gerlach's Digital Landscape Photography. It is crammed with information on how to shoot landscapes

with a DSLR. The book is extremely well written.

Before his death in 2011, Ronnie Gaubert, a superb nature photographer, used the Nikon 300 f/4 and all three Nikon teleconverters,

including the TC20 EII. In 2007 he used a Nikon D200 with this lens and all the teleconverters. Please see this link to some of his

images:

 

http://www.pbase.com/ronnie_14187/the_nature_of_louisiana_2007

 

I had many communications with Ronnie about the lens and have used it with a Nikon D300 and the TC14EII, TC17EII, and now the

TC20EIII. I have generally been quite satisfied in all cases. I can attest that the Nikon manual incorrectly states that autofocusing with

the D300 requires the maximum aperture to be below f/8.

<p>Thanks very much for your responses everyone and especially to your extensive reply, Matt. This clears things up nicely. I sometimes use auto exposure bracketing to shoot a series of multiple images for doing HDRs. Quite often there are extra exposures left over, which I would prefer to delete in the camera. Doing this will be very useful in the future.</p>

<p>This may be an old question, but I have seen conflicting answers to it. If one deletes an image in the camera while out shooting, can this corrupt a memory card? One professional photographer told me that it's nothing to be concerned about. Other people have claimed that you can "mess up the index system on the card" and corrupt it if you delete an image in the camera while shooting. This is not a question about the right way to format a card, which is clearly in the camera. <br>

Thanks very much for your input.</p>

 

<p>Correction: I meant to ask how the bubble can level the camera side to side and front to back.</p>

<p>"But what if you decide you want to buy a nice ink jet with 10 inks? Or you end up with a wide gamut projector (there are some now that output Adobe RGB gamut images)?"<br>

I can tell you with 100% certainty that none of these things will happen, Andrew. I have zero interest in doing my own printing since taking photographs, putting them on a couple of websites, and sending a few out to printers takes up all of my waking time in retirement. Just ask my wife. :-) Also my camera club and all the others around here want sRGB images for digital competitions, and there's no talk about that changing.<br>

Thanks for the tip about ProPhoto in Camera Raw. I'm sure you would recommend 16 bit too.<br>

Jay L.</p>

 

<p>Double bubble levels do not come with instructions, and when I recently purchased one I wondered which way it slides into the hot shoe and how to use it. I have now found the following answer:<br /> http://jimdoty.com/learn/acc/double_bubble/double_bubble.html<br /> I'm just writing to make sure this is correct since this is the only explanation I have seen anywhere. Unfortunately, the explanation does not seem to show that the horizon is level side to side and front to back.<br>

<br /> Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

I have always had great respect for John Shaw, and in doing some reading today on this subject I came across this statement in his last two e-books:<br>

"If you shoot RAW, stay in a high-bit environment as long as possible. Convert your RAW files in Adobe Camera Raw set to 16-bit and ProPhoto RGB. Stay in 16-bit in Photoshop and save your master files as 16-bit...ProPhoto RGB is the widest color space choice, thus allowing me to use more of the colors that my camera’s sensor records. Just remember that this is not a color space for the web; sRGB is used for that as it is the lowest common denominator color space. Work in ProPhoto, and then convert to a different color space when needed." This supports your position completely.<br>

However, in his first e-book dealing with CS3 he writes in connection with Color Settings in Photoshop:<br>

"The default setting, sRGB, is not what you want if you are primarily concerned with optimizing files destined for printing, either by you or by a client. If you’re working strictly to produce images for the web or for digital slideshows, then this default is fine."<br>

My images are either destined for the web, digital slideshows, or printing by Costco or other commercial printers who request sRGB. Consequently, John Shaw obviously is suggesting for people like me that sRGB is an appropriate color setting in Photoshop. As for Camera Raw, it's not clear to me what color space to use. Perhaps AdobeRGB would be an appropriate compromise. <br>

Thanks.<br>

Jay<br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>What you're saying, Garrison, makes perfect sense to me. However, the article I quoted does say: "The scene gamut might fit better in Adobe RGB (1998) or even sRGB. You need to be aware of the working space gamut, the scene gamut, as well as the gamut of any output device you may use."<br>

Still, based on your impeccable logic, the simplest thing to do is to just stick with ProPhotoRGB in Camera Raw and in Photoshop and then convert to sRGB for the Web and commercial printers who want sRGB.<br>

I HAVE looked at an image in CS5 that was imported from Camera Raw twice, once set to ProPhotoRGB and once set to sRGB in Camera Raw. I can't see any difference between them on the computer monitor. However, maybe this kind of visual inspection is not a good test. </p>

 

<p>I read the excellent article that Andrew Rodney suggested, and it contains the following:<br>

"Images have a color gamut as well. You might photograph a scene of very pastel colors such as a white dog on snow. You could encode that image into ProPhoto RGB, but a huge portion of that working space gamut isn’t used. The scene gamut might fit better in Adobe RGB (1998) or even sRGB. You need to be aware of the working space gamut, the scene gamut, as well as the gamut of any output device you may use."<br>

In terms of the best color space in Camera Raw. the article states:<br>

"In Figure 11 you can see an image captured on a Canon 350D of Sydney Harbor. While it doesn’t<br />appear to be an overly saturated scene, notice how the histogram in Camera Raw updates as I<br />toggle from sRGB to Adobe RGB (1998) and finally to ProPhoto RGB. If I like the color rendering<br />and want to fully contain all the colors, I need to encode the data in ProPhoto RGB. I will do so<br />in 16-bit because of the very wide gamut of ProPhoto RGB."<br>

This suggests that the best color space is the one that provides the best color rendering. It doesn't automatically have to be any particular color space as I read this.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have adopted the recommendation of John and Barbara Gerlach to set my Nikon D300 color space to sRGB so that the image looks best on the LCD monitor. My question concerns the color space to choose for processing RAW images. My final output is also in sRGB color space because I either post to the Web or send files out for printing at Costco or elsewhere, which request sRGB color space. I do not print myself. My workflow is to process in Adbobe Camera Raw and then make final touch ups in Photoshop CS5.<br>

Currently I set the color space to sRGB in Camera Raw and sRGB in CS5. I am wondering if there is any advantage or disadvantage to setting the color space to Adobe RGB in Camera Raw and CS5 as far as editing is concerned. Since I will be converting back to sRGB in the final file, it's not clear to me what the best procedure is. I've also noticed that the sRGB and Adobe RGB histograms in Camera Raw are not necessarily identical as far as clipping highlights in concerned. Therefore, keeping everything at sRGB in camera and in post processing is at least consistent from the viewpoint of histograms.<br>

Thanks for any input you can provide.</p>

 

Thanks to everyone for responding to my post, and I only raised the issue because a professional landscape photographer has advised me to ignore diffraction, a view that many obviously do not accept. For me the practical problem in doing landscapes is deciding on the right aperture. I don't wish to open up any other cans of worms, but the possibilities seem to be (1) always shoot at the sweet spot of a lens, say f/11, (2) somehow find the aperture that produces a desirable depth of field, (3) follow Scott Kelby's advice and use f/22 for broad landscapes (obviously he ignores diffraction), (4) take 3 or 4 different shots at different apertures and pick the best one. Thanks again for your responses.

I have a Nikon D300 and have read a great deal in the Nikon forum about the

significance of diffraction and its effects at small apertures.

 

However, Rob Sheppard, editor of Outdoor Photographer, states this on p. 169 of

his 2006 book, The Magic of Digital Nature Photography: "Most lenses have what

is called a diffraction effect that affects sharpness up close...Small lens

openings don't hurt most photos at a distance. If they did, lens manufacturers

would get rid of them...Up close is a different story. As you get to macro

distances, an f/16 or f/22 setting can drop image quality significantly on most

lenses except for macro lenses (which may still show the effect).

 

The bottom line is that despite all the discussion about diffraction the

implication of Sheppard's statement appears to be that one should not worry

about this issue in doing landscapes. It is only in doing very tight close-up

shots that diffraction becomes a realistic issue.

 

I think there is another way of reaching the same conclusion. The concept of

diffraction in photography was popularized by

 

Sean T. McHugh, Professor of Chemical Engineering at Cambridge University. He

discusses the physics of diffraction in this article:

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

 

However, the practical significance of his article appears at the end in a

section entitled, Notes on Real-World Use in Photography. Specifically, he states:

 

"Even when a camera system is near or just past its diffraction limit, other

factors such as focus accuracy, motion blur and imperfect lenses are likely to

be more significant. Softening due to diffraction only becomes a limiting factor

for total sharpness when using a sturdy tripod, mirror lock-up and a very high

quality lens."

 

Even if Professor McHugh's statement is correct, mirror lock-up is generally not

used for shooting landscapes. According to Bob Atkins:

 

"In general, for lenses of 300mm and over (and macro work), users should try to

avoid using shutter speeds between 1/30 and 1/4 second for optimal sharpness.

For "normal" work with lenses of 100mm or less, sharpness loss due to mirror

induced vibrations does not seem to be an issue."

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/mlu.html

 

People generally do not use long lenses along with mirror lock-up for

landscapes. This only reinforces the point made by Rob Sheppard about the

apparent irrelevance of diffraction for landscape work. While many people will

argue the opposite, I have been unable to find statements by top professional

landscape photographers supporting the significance of diffraction for landscape

work.

To answer Matt Laur's question, I was using sRGB. I have now read that one can use Live View in the D300 to easily set white balance correctly by setting the Kelvin option.

A few weeks ago I photographed a butterfly in the local butterfly garden with a

Nikon D200. I shot a simultaneous JPEG+RAW image. I was very happy with the

image on the camera LCD screen, and the JPEG looked quite good when I uploaded

it to Photoshop CS2.

 

Yesterday I shot a snowy owl with a Nikon D300. I shot a simultaneous JPEG+RAW

(lossless compressed) image. I was very happy with the image on the D300 LCD

screen. However, when I uploaded the JPEG to Photoshop CS2, the image was quite

faded and had a blue cast. It didn't look good at all, whereas it looked great

on the D300 LCD monitor.

 

Could anyone please explain to me what is going on here? Things seem to work

fine with the D200 but not the D300. In both cases I used auto white balance,

and the histogram was perfect with no blinking highlights. I have shot pure

JPEG's before with the D300 and have never had a problem like this.

 

Thanks for your help.

I print mostly 12X18 but have also printed 16X20. I use a Bogen/Manfrotto 055MF3 Magfiber Pro Carbon Fiber 3-Section tripod that supports 15.5 pounds, a Markins Q-Ball M20, and cable release. What I'm hearing in your responses is that the 18-200mm should be fine for landscape purposes and that also lugging the 17-35mm and 28-70mm will likely add little if anything. I'm even seeing an argument here for selling off the last two lenses!

I own the Nikon 18-200mm, 12-24mm, 17-35mm, and 28-70mm. While the 17-35mm and

28-70mm are generally described as professional lenses, the 18-200mm is

frequently described as a walkabout lens. I am planning to do landscape

photography in Peru this spring/summer. I plan to use the 12-24mm extensively,

but I'm not sure about the usefulness of the 18-200mm as a landscape lens.

 

Is the 18-200mm distinctively inferior to the 17-35mm and 28-70mm for this

purpose in terms of image quality? The answer may appear to be obvious, but I

have never seen any test results discussed on this issue.

 

Weight may be a consideration in terms of the number of lenses I would want to

take. Ideally I would like to take all of them and use the 18-200mm for hand

held shots and not for landscape work. All landscape shots would be on a tripod

using the Nikon D300.

 

Thanks for your assistance!