racksonc

<p>Thanks everyone, for the replies.<br>

I'm thinking that the Lowepro Mini Trekker or Kata DR 467i would be the right size. The Mountainsmith Borealis looks interesting too. The Thinktank pack looks a little light on padding; is that right?<br>

I'll have to find some stores around that have them. <br>

Thanks again!</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I'd like some advice on photo backpacks. I've poked around Lowpro's and Tamrac's sites, but I'm not sure what would be best for my situation. I plan on traveling for a few months with a big pack in which I'll throw the photo pack. When I stop somewhere, I'd like to be able to leave the big pack, and walk around with only the photo pack. So, I'm looking for something as compact as possible. I would, however, trade some size for extra padding. I'll be carrying the following:</p>

<p>A D700, 16-35 f/4, 24-120 f/4, and accessories (batteries, cards, a blower, pec-pads, a filter, and an extra lens cap). <br>

It would also be nice to have room for a jacket and lunch, although that might make the pack too big, I'm not really sure. </p>

<p>I'd really appreciate any pack suggestions for either the photo gear only, or the photo gear + lunch. <br>

Thanks!<br>

Charlie</p>

 

<p>Many thanks to all who posted a response. <br>

<br />I called Coscto and asked them which profile to use. They have two printers, a Fuji Frontier 590 and an Epson 7880. They only use the Epson for very large prints. So, for my 4"x6" test prints I chose the the Fuji Lustre paper profile. <br>

<br />In the LR export dialogue under "color space", I chose "other" and added the Costco profiles. I did the same in the Print module. </p>

<p>For photos that already had a 2x3 aspect ratio, I simply exported JPEGs with the Fuji Lustre profile. For photos that did not, to keep Coscto from automatically cropping, I added a stroke border and/or margins in the Print module and chose "print to: jpeg file". I then re-imported those jpeg files and cropped the margins to taste with a 2x3 aspect ratio. <br>

<br />I had 20 4"x6" color and black-and-white prints made. All the color photos came out extremely well; I couldn't have hoped for better. Some of the color files had very saturated colors and some had very subtle color. They all came out very very close to how they looked on-screen. The black and white photos had excellent tonality, but they all had a slight purple cast. Perhaps there is a way to avoid this; I'll ask the technician about B&W next time I'm down there. <br>

<br />-- Charlie</p>

<p>Thanks Sheldon. For my local Coscto there are profiles for two different printers. Can you specify which printer is used when you order prints? I don't want to prepare the file for one printer only to have them use the other. <br>

-- Charlie</p>

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for your help! I think I'll crop to size when I can, but printing to JPEG seems to work great. </p>

<p>I just called Costco and the photo guy wasn't exactly sure how I was supposed to use the profiles. He said that using the profile would change the colors in the JPEG file. Does that mean embedding the profile? </p>

<p>-- Charlie</p>

 

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I've been taking photos for a few years, but I really don't know much about printing. I was considering buying a printer and someone suggested that I try the Costco printing service. I went to talk to the Costco people and they referred me to a website with color profiles for their printers: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Profiles/Washington_profiles.htm (I'm interested in the Issaquah Costco). They also told me that if my photos didn't have a 1x1.5 aspect ratio, they would be automatically cropped. They suggested that I add borders to my photos to produce a 1x1.5 image file. I use Lightroom3 and I have Gimp, although I don't really know how to use the latter. I have a couple questions. </p>

<p>1. Is there any way to save a photo with borders in LR3? If not, how can I use Gimp to do it? </p>

<p>2. How can I use their printer profile in LR3? In Gimp? </p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

Charlie</p>

 

<p>Hello Luis,<br>

I don't really know which jpg setting would get the Velvia look; I only shoot in raw. But I've stumbled across a few setting that to me are really useful. These are just a couple of my personal favorites. They work well for my shooting style; they may not for yours. Anyway, here's what I like:<br>

The AF-on button. The D700 has a dedicated AF-on button which, for me, is really really convenient. I've turned off the shutter-button autofocus activation and set the camera to af-c (continuous). That way you autofocus until you get what you want, stop pressing the af-on, recompose, and shoot. So far the funtionality is about the same as shutter-button autofocus gives you. The advantage is that now you're always ready to shoot a fast moving subject that requires continuous focus. Also, in a pinch, you can manually focus without setting the camera to manual focus. With regular af lenses you turn the autofocus motor when you do this, which may not be a good idea, but at least you have the option. <br>

I set the function button to call up my "favorite setting" (auto iso) in the "my menu". (I think I have those names right, but I'm not sure). This way if I'm shooting in, say, aperture priority mode with auto iso, it's very quick to change the minimum shuter speed (in auto iso) to change the "shuter-speed/ISO compromise" as lighting conditions change. <br>

If you shoot in RAW, one of the most important settings you can change is in the jpg processing control menu. If you take a photo in raw and look at the histogram, you'll see that histogram of the photo <strong>as processed by the camera</strong> , not the raw histogram. In other words, with standard jpg control settings, the histogram will tell you that you're getting less dynamic range than you actually are. To see what range of data is actully being captured (where the higlights and shadows are actually being clipped), set the contrast as low as possible in the jpg control menu. <br>

So those are the setting that I've found to be useful or important. Maybe they won't be to you, but that's your call. <br>

Congrats on the new camera,<br>

Charles</p>

<p>Many thanks to everyone for your advice. <br>

I'm really not a fan of most zooms, and since I already have primes that cover much of the wide to normal range, I'll limit my lens search to primes.<br>

I have two old nikkors: a 105mm f/2.5 and an 85mm f/1.8. I think that what I'll do, after having read the comments about focal length, is have them AI'd and see how I tend to use the different lengths. If I find myself using the 85mm f/1.8 a lot, then I'll probably buy the AF-D version (much much lighter and autofocus). <br>

For hiking/landscape uses, I think that the f/1.8 version would be more practical than the f/1.4. For portraits, I'll just stick with the 70-200. <br>

And yes, Ivar, I shoot in raw. <br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>Paul,<br>

Thanks for great links. I'm thinking that it would be good to get the lens AI'd even if I get a new autofocus prime. Or mybe it's worth selling. Do you have any idea how much I might be able to get for it? (it's in very nice condition)<br>

-<br>

Eric,<br>

I think your right. The 70-200 is probably good enough for portraits. For hiking, and perhaps other photography, the 85mm f/1.8 would be a good choice. A zoom might be a really nice idea, but I don't want something too large (like the 24-70mm f/2.8 nikkor). Are there any smaller zooms (maybe f/4 or so) that have excellent optical quality? I've used an 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 on my D80 and was very disappointing with the sharpness and distortion compared to my prime lenses.<br>

--<br>

Ted,<br>

I'm sure that my old 105mm f/2.5 needs AI'ing to go on a D700. I carfully tried mounting it, and it was immediately obvious that it could not fit without removing some metal from the lens. <br>

--<br>

Thanks everyone for your responses.</p>

<p>Thanks for the response Ted. <br>

I actually happen to have an old 105mm f/2.5 lens, although I'm not sure which version it is. I think it was bought before the F2 came out... Currently, I can't mount it on my D700; it needs to be AI'd. Do you happen to know where I can get lenses AI'd? <br>

I suppose that might be a really nice lens for landscapes, but for people shots I'd really like autofocus. Maybe it's worth AI'ing and taking along for landscapes, but I'd still like a short telephoto that has autofocus.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I'd like your opinion about which lens, if any, I should buy next. I have a D700, a 24mm f/2.8, a 35mm f/2, a 50mm f/1.8, and a 70-200mm f/2.8. I do a lot of hiking with my camera and, although I use the 24mm a lot of the time, I often find myself wishing I had something a little longer than a 50mm with me. I've found 50mm to be a little short for many people shots (on FX), and some of my favorite landscape photos with climbers in them appear to have been taken with a short telephoto. The 70-200 provides a nice focal length, but it's heavy and bulky and, on FX, not great in the corners for landscapes; I bought it mostly for dog photography and indoor sports.<br>

I was thinking that an 85mm lens would be perfect. It seems that 85mm would be long enough for the landscapes that I have in mind, while still being short enough for people shots. I'd like to decide if I should get the 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4. Or maybe you have other recommendations?<br>

If I only planned to take hiking shots, then I think the f/1.8 would be the obvious choice. However, I also do quite a bit of portrait photography. So, maybe I should kill two birds with one stone and get the f/1.4 for both portraits and hiking (I don't mind the extra weight over the f/1.8). On the other hand, maybe the 70-200 f/2.8 is already good enough for portraits, and I should buy a lens with only hiking in mind. Do you think that this is the case, or is the 85mm f/1.4 a significant step above the 70-200 f/2.8 for portraits? <br>

I'd really appreciate your thoughts on all this.<br>

--Charles</p>

<p>I would go for the 18-70 and the 50mm f/1.8. I had a D80, and the 18-70 was a great general purpose lens; wide angle to medium telephoto. Whenever I had to shoot in low light I would use the 50mm f/1.8. On a D80 I actually found that I used the 50mm more than I did my 70-200mm f/2.8.</p>

<div></div>

Thanks for your answers. I think that I now understand when I should use the different modes.

Thanks everyone. So, basically Active VR can be a problem when you have smaller vibrations because it anticipates larger movements and overcompensates?

Hi,

 

I just bought a 70-200 Nikkor. It's my first VR lens and I have a question about the advantages and

disadvantages of the different VR modes. From what I understand, the "Normal VR" allows the lens to be panned.

That is, it does not try to filter out high magnitude movements. On the other hand, the "Active VR" apparently

tries to correct for all movements. I've noticed that at very slow shutter speeds the Active VR seems to do

better than the Normal VR. The lens manual says that Active VR should be used when shooting from a car, boat,

etc. My question is, are there any reasons why I shouldn't always use Active VR instead of Normal VR when I know

that I won't be panning?

 

Thanks a lot,

Charlie

I borrowed the 105 non-VR from a friend and absolutely loved it. For tripod macro,

the field of view is perfect (at least on my D80). It's fairly sharp @f/2.8 (only f2/8 at

infinity focus), and if you stop it down a little it's as sharp as the 50mmf/1.8. It

seems to peak in sharpness at f/8, but it;s still fairly good @ f/22.

 

The working distance (again, on a DX camera) is very nice. You get very close

macro, but you don't block your light.

 

On a DX camera, it's a perfect lens for tight face portraits. However, it's a little long

for half length shots.

 

The 105 (on DX) is great for some sports. I personally used it in a big field to

photograph dogs playing.

 

I suggest that if you want a lens primarily for macro, get the 105mm. However, if

you want to also take portraits (showing more than just the face), then you should

stay with the 60mm. (or you could just get a $100 50mm f/1.8 for this, really a great

lens).

50mm refers the the physical focal length of the lnes. Putting it on a camera with a smaller sensor (than film) does not change that focal length, it has the effect of cropping. That is, the sensor only captures part of the image. On a D300 you get the same field of view as a film camera would give you with a 75mm lens.

 

Perspective is determined by the location of the camera. if you stood in the same spot, you would get the same perspective with a 16mm lens as you would with a 600mm. It's the field of view that changes.

 

A "digital lens" is one that projects an image that only covers a small sensor. A 50mm "digital lens" has the same focal length as a regular 50mm. That is, it would still "become" a 75mm lens with regard to field of view. To get a 50mm field of view on a DX camera, you would have to use a 33.333... lens.

 

I myself have a D80 with a 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor. I REALLY like the field of view - great for portraits and fairly good for general photography. With this set-up you still get the "normal" perspective (at a given distance). With a 33mm lens, you would get a wide angle perspective which would be terrible for close portraits (unless you want that effect).

 

I suggest that, unless you really need that field of view, you just get a 50mm and don't worry about it.

I have a D80 and recently got the 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor. The lens is much better in low light than my 18-70 zoom, however, it's not that sharp at f/1.8. It does very well @f/2.8, and by f/4 it's about as good as lenses get. I've read that the f/1.4 version is quite sharp by f/2, so if you need sharpness at wide apertures, you should probably get the f1.4. On the other hand, I've found that for most applications, I don't ave enough depth of field until f/2.8. If you're shooting portraits and want a shallow DOF (and fairly sharp), then the f/1.4 would be better. However, if you will mostly shoot at f/2.8, then there is no reason to get the f/1.4.

 

I've found that @ISO 1600, the f/2.8 is good enough for most indoor lighting conditions. The D80 doesn't look that good @ISO 1600, but the D300 should be fine.

I have not looked into the G9, but I know that the Canon SD870 is fairly nice for around $250 (Adorama). It has IS and an equivilent focal length of 28-105. This isn't close to a DSLR, but it's quite compact. Many other Canon point and shoots are missing the wide angle.

Thanks for answering everyone. A judo match is held within a fairly restriced area (14 x 14 meters total - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judo ). I wouldn't go on the mat, I would just stand at the edge where the players would not go anyway. The players move around a lot, so I'm sure that I would have good oppurtunities. I'm not sure what focal length is ideal, but, as somene pointed out, I can just crop. I want to be able to get full body shots of 2 people standing, so maybe my 50mm (like a 75mm on the D80) is good.

 

Flash might be ok, but I really think that it would be rather distracting (I play judo myself and say that from experience). If I were taking pictures of national tournaments, there would probably be lots of light (by the way, judo is an olympic sport and is very similar to wrestleing). However, I'm taking photos of kids in local tournaments where the lighting can be pretty bad.

 

Maybe I can set up some spotlights or somthing. They would be a constant light sourse, and so would not be distracting (If I was able to get them high enough). Any suggestions on this?

 

Thanks

Charles,

 

Thank you so much. This is really a huge help. I now think that my problem was the order of my adjustments. I'm getting much better results now.

(Just in case you don't know) When you increase the ISO in the camera, all all you're doing is amplifing the signal from the CCD. Any noise that occurs will also be amplified. So the question then is: more small noise or less big noise? I would go with the small noise as it's easyer to remove later.

I tried Capture NX and Lightroom. I don't really like Capture NX, but Lightroom seems quite nice. Aside from the price, are there any advantages to Lightroom over Photoshop? Any disadvantages? I don't really want to do a whole lot, just make adjustments in RAW, convert to B&W, and maybe do HDR (although I could skip this).

 

I used the clarity slider in Lightroom, but I can't seem to find it in Photoshop (trial version). Could I be in some basic mode or something?

 

Thanks

I haven't yet tried useing the 50mm for this. Your comment about the 85mm makes sense - not worth it. I'll try shooting with it, and if it doesn't work I'll get a speedlight. I suspect that it won't. I know somone who uses a Canon 30D with an 85mm f/1.8 and he's not getting good results. Thanks for your help.