3sh

<p>Last week I went to Niagara Falls with my D300 and 18-105mm only. Although, I did not take out my camera from the plastic bag in the made of the mist tour, but I took a lot of night shots standing on the watch tower. A tripod is a must.</p><div></div>

<p>On top of mount equinox, VT, the tallest mountain in south Vermont. D300, 50mm f/8, 1/800s.</p><div></div>

<p>D300, 1/160s, f/5.6, ISO 200 at 260mm.</p><div></div>

<p>1/400s, f/8, ISO 320 at 300mm with D300</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks to all who commented on my post last Wednesday. Today's picture is taken at the same place as the last. Although I took some pictures last Saturday, but had not had time to process them or sort them.</p><div></div>

<p>After a long time, submitting on wednesday forum. Went to a local sanctuary last saturday and spent 4hrs there.</p><div></div>

<p>Brick Wall</p><div></div>

<p>It was raining all weekend and I was also very busy, so I had little time to use my camera. So today's picture is from a previous trip to butterfly park.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks to all for their valuable suggestions. I think it's more like moire than a processing problem. Without even processing anything, 100% view of the RAW file is showing this pattern in any of the software I have used so far. I have saved the RAW in TIFF and still it is present. Certainly the RAW format is much more powerful than the camera converted JPG, so it is maintaining more information in it. I am getting closure into the physics of this moire occurrence and soon I will do some tests to draw a conclusion. Thank you all again for your valuable inputs.<br>

Hota</p>

<p>Lex, I think you are right, this is some kind of moire. If I ever get another chance to visit Rutgers, I will check it with the other side of the chimneys. I mean I will test along the sunny side and the opposite site, so that I can make a definite conclusion. I tried your suggestion with picasa, that's the other one I have at present, but the patters are still there. Attached is the 100% crop from picasa of the RAW file.</p><div></div>

<p>The last one -</p><div></div>

<p>Next one-</p><div></div>

<p>Hi all, last weekend I was in Rutgers to meet my friend after a long time. When the motive of visit was purely a reunion type, but I could not stop myself using my camera whenever possible. I only attached the 50mm 1.8 with my D300 and used it all the time. So when we were going to the student center(walking by) for lunch, I took some random pictures. I had never before used the 50mm/1.8 in broad daylight, and I never compared my jpgs with the raw to find out what difference they produce. Actually since I started using RAW, I use the JPGs to select out the good and sharp pictures than the rest(mostly in every outing, I took at list 300-400 pictures with 12bit RAW+fine JPG, and later use the JPGs to find out the sharp and good from the rest. My laptop can read the JPGs very quickly, but takes time to open the RAW files, so I save some time by this way).<br>

So this time, I accidentally come across to look at the same JPG and RAW at 100% view one after another and notice a considerable difference in this picture. When I say considerable, I mean at 100% view, which no one might be interested to view at. And it is not showing any difference in structural view point rather in pattern of light, I believe producing from reflection.<br>

As I am not sure what is going on, I thought to ask for the answer. Being a physicist, I should be able to figure out the cause, but being an experimental physicist, I rely on hands on experiment and outcomes. As for the present time being I cannot repeat the process, I will rely on your replies to know the reason. //So here in the problem - look at the chimneys and you will see what light pattern I am talking about, is it digital artifact or reflection of light?// I am not sure, but from the curvature of the pattern, this is more likely to be reflection of light, but then why the JPG file removed it(it's still there but hardly visible) and the RAW contained it(I played with the RAW file with different settings, but cannot remove the pattern)! I will attach 3 pictures, the original, 100% crop from the RAW, and 100% crop from the JPG. The original is straight from RAW to JPG via adobe camera raw and then re-sized to fit the limit of PNet posting, nothing else is changed.<br>

Picture details - D300, f/4.5, 1/2500s, ISO 200, 50mm/1.8, metering-pattern, manual exposure, WB-AUTO at 10:03 AM, bright sunny day.<br>

Any explanation will be appreciated. Thanks.</p><div></div>

<p>Taken at riverside my fav spot</p><div></div>

<p>D300, 1/500s, f/5.6, 300mm, ISO 200. It seems the golden horse is running faster than the wind.</p><div></div>

<p>I will use Nikon Transfer to transfer the files from the camera to the computer and then from PS File menu just open the .NEF file. It automatically opens the file in camera raw window and only after that you can go to the PS. If you are not using Nikon Transfer, it might be the cause of the problem. And if you are using nikon transfer, then it might be the PS which is the problem.</p>

<p>I visited a butterfly park and this is what I got.</p>

<div></div>

<p>It was very cold last weekend, so I did some indoor shooting at 82F.<br>

Details - D300, 90mm Tamron macro, f/4, 1/160s, ISO 400, handhold.</p><div></div>

<p>From the riverside.<br>

Details - D300, 70-300VR, f/6.3, ISO 450 at 300mm, 1/400s.</p><div></div>

<p>Oh, for the answer of your question, I will go for the VRI as Rene' Villela said. In DX body and wildlife, VRI is fine. VRII gives you corner sharpness as the review says, but you can always crop the picture.</p>

<p>Srinidhi, you get what you pay. You pay for 70-200 VRI, you get a very very good lens, you pay for 2x Tc and attach it to the lens, you will get 140-400 as the quality of 80-400VR which will not satisfy you again. you pay for 300/4 Af-S and 1.4x Tc, you loose zoom, but will get better results than the other combination. A prime suppose to give better results with a tc than a zoom with tc. Now here the deal, 70-200 VR will definitely satisfy your demand upto 200 and in low light condition, and then a Tc of 1.4x(at max 1.7x I will use) will give you a slightly better result(I think, I have never used it) than your 70-300VR in the same light condition. I will go for the 70-200VR with 1.7x TC (not 2.0x TC). In this case, I will get excellent photos upto 200mm, and with a tripod(monopod) better photos upto 340 than the 70-300VR. I don't know why you are not satisfied with 70-300VR, but it is indeed an excellent lens. I don't expect it to take small bird pictures tac sharp in low light, but big animals in reasonable light, I don't see a problem. As many had said, 70-200 is not a lens for wildlife, but with low budget capability, we cannot help ourselves. But again, that is an excuse. We might not get too many keepers, but with patience, we will get enough. <br>

One more thing, I will wait for Nikon to announce this years arrivals, you never know what surprises they have for us.<br>

Happy shooting.<br>

Hota </p>

<p>Again birds! Very good pictures so far. Mine was taken last saturday at Ipswich Mass Audubon sanctuary. I played with the curves tool and cropped.<br>

Details - D300, 70-300VR, at 300mm, f/8, 1/1000s, ISO 200, handheld.</p><div></div>

<p>ohh, now I know why I am late. It's the time zone issue which prevented me to see the thread until 2:47am. So sad!</p>

<p>As Lil Judd is not posting birds today, let me post one taken last saturday at the riverside. All my learning curves are related to this site and whenever I feel that this week I cannot go anywhere to take a picture, I made a trip to the riverside which is half mile from my home and it never disappoint me. Also I have not used my Sigma 150-500mm HSM APO OS much, so I took that lens with the 50mm/1.8 only and used the bigma 95%. I was not happy with the bigma being not sharp but also lacked fast auto-focusing. This time it managed to do fast focusing, may be due to the reason that the birds are large(common seagulls) but still am not happy with the sharpness. But the light was bright enough to blow out details of white, so this time I am not blaming the bigma for being not up to my expectation. I will keep trying with it till I save enough money to buy a better costly glass.<br>

Anyway my thanks to Lil Judd for commenting on my photos from previous wednesday forums and my apologies to all the posters for not commenting on their posts. As I am at the beginner stage, I like mostly all the posts in some way or other but not mature enough to comment on them.<br>

And one more thing, I thought that I am becoming crazy to post on wednesday thread and so I was waiting for todays thread and thought that I will post just after Matt. But alas, nikon fans are crazy enough to compete even in this issue. Its 17 past 3am in east cost, just waiting for the thread, after eliminating the mice which was bothering my goodnight sleep for last few nights.<br>

Cheers<br>

Hota</p><div></div>

<p>I am little confused whether to reply or not but could not help myself. I am in the kindergarten stage of photography holding a dslr slightly more than one year and taking whatever picture whenever possible. And I believe I love nature and wildlife more than anything except my camera. Due to my work schedules I can only venture on week ends and try to visit sanctuaries within 50 miles of my living place. Also I don't have any of those high end super tele glasses which can give me far reach and sharp pictures. Having all these restrictions, I will never say that I cannot do wildlife photography. I also dream of becoming a pro wildlife photographer one day and I have the confidence to achieve my goal. The success of wildlife photography depends one many things -<br>

a) Having a good feel of the wildlife you are going to take pictures off. If you can blend yourself with the wildlife like you do when you go to a shopping mall, you can achieve success more easily than focusing a super-tele. That said, you should be aware of your surroundings and the behaviors of the wildlife.<br>

b) You should have enough patience so that when you focused for a moment and miss one right next to that, you never shout "what the h**k I just missed". Silence should be preserved in nature. <br>

c) Be at the right place at the right time. You cannot control this situation but you definitely can improve on this. Just by keeping point (a) in mind.<br>

These are the most integral parts of wildlife photography. With these and few other major points(like stand against the wind, be close to the ground, shoe with rubber sole, not wearing shiny dress etc) can definitely give you ample opportunities to capture wildlife within the range of your apparatus.<br>

Obviously you cannot capture everything or like those standing far with a super-tele but if you know the limitations, you can do a great job with whatever apparatus you have.<br>

I support John's view completely. So for the OP, there is nothing to worry about. My suggestions of equipment will be a Nikon D300s, 70-300VR, a solid tripod with ball head or 70-200/2.8 VRI(then not much money will left over), a TC 1.7x and a wide angle prime like 50mm/1.8 or 35mm/2 or 28mm/2.8 (sometime a full view of nature including the wildlife is more beautiful than the wildlife alone). Other than this, an eagerness and love for nature. That is it for now.<br>

To the experienced posters, please excuse me if I have said something wrong.<br>

Cheers Ajay<br>

Hota</p>