hlwimmer

<blockquote>

<p>If you are using one of the automatic exposure modes (Aperture, Shutter, or Priority) with a speedlight, I can't think of a situation where exposure compensation makes sense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the question is about flash compensation (not necessarily about overall exposure compensation). for instance, i'f i'm using the flash as a fill light and i wanted to bump down the flash output (vs. gathering more ambient light), i might want signal the flash to fire 2 stops under.</p>

<p>+1/peter</p>

<p>as previously stated, the amazon marketplace vendors can be sketchy at best in many cases. there's little protection that amazon can offer in this case above/beyond what your credit card company will offer. buying actually /from/ amazon can be awesome as they have a great return policy. buying from any of their trusted (new stock) sellers like adorama or 17th street is less ideal. buying from the "used" section is definitely at-your-own-risk.</p>

<p>do the math: deal too good to be true (+) belligerent seller (=) bad news ... as peter stated, cut communication and send a note to amazon (no need to tell /him/ what you're doing, but unfortunately, it's unlikely that amazon will actually do anything... they get their cut.). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hunter, are you aware that you can change the exposure compensation on the SB900 by rotating the dial clockwise for positive compensation and counter clockwise for negative compensation after pushing the compensation button once?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@ elliot: no i didn't... and now i do (thanks). much, much better. ... much.</p>

<p>re: "cycling" -- perhaps the wrong word to use when discussing flash stuff.</p>

<p>my SB800 as i recall had a (+) and a (-) button. the SB900 just has one (+/-) and if you want to set it at -1, you have to press the button 16 times (through til +3, then back around)... "cycling through" the numbers in only one direction. kind of a pain.</p>

<p>thanks again for all of your help. fwiw: i've recently upgraded to the D7000 (from a D100) and picked up 4 new sigma lenses: [1] 10-20/3.5, [2] 17-70/2.8-4macro, [3] 50/1.4 and [4] 70-200/2.8OS ... i'm liking all of the lenses so far, but you can really begin to see lens quality at 16MP ... i can only imagine what it'd be like on an FX 5Dm2.</p>

<p>i've also been drafted to shoot a friend's wedding in a few weeks, thus the testing and tweaking.</p>

<p>update: after setting the target at a more typical/reasonable distance of 1.5m (as opposed to 0.6m -- nearly minimum focus), i've found that focus @ 1.4 is close to -4.</p>

<p>if you recall, focus (0.6m) @ 1.4 was +14 ... sure enough, when the target moved back, the focus point pushed back (which brought the +14 to -4).</p>

<p>presently, at 1.5m (@ -4) the focus point seems stable through the ranges (1.4 - 2.8 at least), so i think i might have found it's sweet-spot. if i move the target forward, @ the focus begins to drift, however -- the closer the target and the wider the aperture, the more the variance<br>

at minimum focus, things are a bit of a mess -- varying from +14 @ 1.4 to -11 @ 2.8 ... so i think i'm better off testing at a more typically-used distance. if i shoot something close (like a ring), i'll use the macro lens anyway. for me, the 50/1.4 is for indoor party shots an medium range.</p>

<p>so... does the logic seem solid? focusing on a target at a more reasonable subjuct-distance and looking for that "sweet-spot" where the focus is about the same through the aperture range at the same micro-adjustment number? or is there some universal rule where you have to bump the aperture wide open and focus on the closest spec of lint?</p>

<p>thanks again for all of your help... 3 more lenses to go. (ugg).</p>

<p>thanks for the responses.</p>

<p>it seems that adjusting on the flash will yield the best results -- but that either will work (with varying degrees of success/confusion).</p>

<p>unfortunately on the SB900 (unlike the 800) there's only one button (rather than two) so you have to cycle around to go from (+) to (-) ... weird interface choice. this might be a reason why someone might want to choose on-camera.</p>

<p>thanks to you both.</p>

<p>both are correct: i'm wondering which controls i should be using -- on-camera or on-flash... and if (a) one over-rides the other, (b) if it doubles-up the effect or © if the controls are somehow tailored to do different/independent things.</p>

<p>essentially, i want to underexpose my flash output by 2 stops. should i use the on-camera or on-flash controls (and if i accidentally do both, will one override/correct the other).</p>

<p>thanks again. photo.net once again proves to be invaluable.</p>

<p>Sorry if this is covered elsewhere (I searched) and if so, links would be great...</p>

<p>On my SB900 (and SB800), I can dial the flash up/down by a few stops through the menu on the flash. On my D7000, I can also do the same via the flash control menu.</p>

<p>Question: Which should be used? Do they do the same thing? Would one cancel the other out or double up the effect? Is there a difference in what the two control?</p>

<p>Thanks for any wisdom you can lend.</p>

<p>a similar question (sorry, not to hijack)... for the latest version with the OS: has there been more than one iteration? i recently picked one up used. it's a 70-200/2.8-OS. the latest ads have mentioned FLD glass. would mine also have that? if so, i think i got a good deal on a lens that has only been out a short while (even though the prev. owner said 3-5 years old).</p>

<p>Again, many thanks... photo.net has come through again. I'll finish the testing at distances and make a decision one way or the others.</p>

<p>Now, I've a question about my SB900 (flash under/over setting on the flash vs. camera), and but that's for another thread.</p>

<p>Thanks. Of course, folks buy this lens because of the huge glass and 1.4-ability, the lens is, of course, dramatically better at 2.0 and above... However, the point about the 1.4 DOF being razor thin (coupled with the point about actual working distances) makes me think that setting it for 1.4 instead of my more normal working aperture of 2.0 might be worth thinking about.</p>

<p>I think my next test will be with the card quite a bit further from the camera to test the latter point -- good call there and thanks again.</p>

<p>Hi: I'm venturing into my first attempt at micro focusing adjustments after a few "hmm. i thought that was in focus" shots. I'm presently working on my sigma 50/1.4. I'm using both the 45deg-card-on-table method as well as a home-made version of lensalign.</p>

<p>at f1.4, my focus point is +12. However, as the lens stops down, the focal point moves backwards each successive stop to +12 at f4... this is fairly consistent with the focus shift in the sample photos of CA on photozone.de (link: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/392-sigma_50_14_canon?start=1).</p>

<p>Is this normal? Something I should worry about? I was a bit worried until i saw the test lens doing the same thing.</p>

<p>How should I set focus? I'll probably be using it at around f2 most of the time, should I set focus for 1.4 or for 2.0?</p>

<p>Thanks for any insight you can lend.</p>

<p>//hunter</p>

<p>Thanks, Alex: Fortunately, I must've gotten a good batch (or my standards are low) from Amazon. When I purchase the 50/1.4, i might order three and return two... ;)</p>

<p>i received the sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (and the 10-20/3.5-EX) and preliminary use seems to indicate that it's at least as good (sharpness, distortion, etc.) as the nikon with the same(ish) macro abilities... so, other than the 15mm on the long end, i'm not missing much (save future re-sale value) -- and gaining: OS and a wider field of view.</p>

<p>i might even go so far as to say it seems charper, but i'm using it on the newer D7000 (ratherthan the old D100), so there's lots of differences technologically body-wise.</p>

<p>the 10-20 is likewise a nice lens and perfect for the architectural work i do.</p>

<p>it's also nice that photoshop has the distortion profiles for both lenses... it didn't for some of the nikons, oddly enough.</p>

<p>so... in the end: thanks for the insight and wisdom. i'm happy with the purchase(s) so far and will report back if there's something significant to add otherwise.</p>

<p>eventually, i plan on picking up their 50/1.4 and a longer (70-200/2.8, perhaps)... and will report back.</p>

<p>Thanks again for the responses and insight.</p>

<p>I /am/ leaning towards the 17-70/2.8-4 Sigma as a general "walk-around" lens because of the speed, range, macro and OS. Nikon seems to have lenses that fall into one or two of the four, but not even three (i.e.: the 16-85 has the range + VR, but not the speed nor the macro whereas the 24-85 has the speed and the macro, but not the range or VR)... so, I figure I'm compromising less with the Sigma. Hopefully Alex's Sigma-Karma doesn't wear off ... ;)</p>

<p>Alex -- you seem to be local (i.e.: SF-based, like me). While I work about a block from Gasser's, I gave up on them long ago on everything. However, renting few lenses does make sense... especially if a shop carries Sigma in it's rental line.</p>

<p>Locally, I can think of Calumet + Gassers for lenses and Photo-supply for general (lighting) rental... then K+S all the way down in Palo Alto. What other spots are there? (SF seems to have terrible resources considering it's size.)</p>

<p>[[As an aisde, I'll be looking for a digiback for a 500-series Hassy in the fall (CFV39 or CFV50). K+S used to rent it, but they've become spotty with what they cover. Ideas? I s'pose I should just start calling around...]]</p>

<p>Thanks, all: I definitely appreciate the wisdom. Some interesting points ala "coffee can" (of a 17-85/2.8VR) and "sweet spot" (of the 24-85).</p>

<p>Presently, I'm leaning towards the Sigma for the maco functionality and wider aperture -- it seems to spec out better than my current 24-85 in tests on photozone. I'd give up 15mm on the long end, but again, "compromise" seems to be the word here.</p>

<p>Am I nuts? (Sigma over Nikon)</p>

<p>(I'm also intrigued by Sigma's 50/1.4, but that's another post... ;) ...)</p>

<p>Thanks for the early/quick insight.<br>

--<br>

Eric: Good point about the 16-85's aperture -- thus the interest in the Sigma (with the 2.8-4.0). FWIW, I've not been disappointed with the 25-85's aperture range (2.8-4.0), so the Sigma might be the best bet -- and with the OS would still be better than the 24-85 (and let me keep the "macro" function)... I'd just compromise the 15mm on the long end.</p>

<p>The main reason for replacing the 24-85 is indeed the want for a wider zoom in a more "one-lens-solution" package, however 4 lenses is simply too many for me to carry around and realistically swap/use. Honestly, the need for a wide angle less than 16 or 17 is minimal for me. It seems with the 17-70 and a tele-zoom (70-300), i might have all of my needs covered in 2 lenses.</p>

<p>If someone made a low-distortion 2.8-constant 17/18-70/85 at any price, I'd be game... but it seems with the 2.8s i'm either giving up the wide end (Nikon 24-70/2.8) or the long end (sigma 17-50/2.8).<br>

--<br>

Andrew: Fortunately, the cost of the 16-85 isn't as much of an issue as the compromises I might make with it (lack of "macro" and higher base aperture). The only thing it seems I'm gaining with the Nikon lens is the name, 1mm on the wide side and 15mm on the long side... </p>

<p>I'm searching for a new main/single lens to pair with my D7000. previously the 24-85/2.8-4 served me well on my D100 (and might actually be the answer<br /><br />In a lens, I'm looking for versatility without compromising quality. I rarely shoot telephoto past the 85mm mark (DX sensor) and I've rarely wanted a longer lens (and when I do, I might reach for a 70-300), but I have often wanted something wider without too much distortion. I shoot a lot of architecture and "square things", so distortion is a big factor as is a large max aperture for hand-held work and nice subject-ground separation. I also tend to shoot a lot of details, so the macro capabilities of the 24-85 have proven very useful and I've yet to come up against a macro-limitation when using it for close work. Overall clarity is also a concern. I remember shooting with a 10X+ zoom years ago and everything at every length seemed muddy... so i've been drawn to the more modest zooms. I also tend not to change lenses often, so a one-lens solution (with a few others like a 50/1.4 and a tele-zoom for those rare, rare needs ) is a must.<br /><br />Concerns in order:<br />1: One lens solution:<br />... wide-zooms and primes are purposefully not on the list<br />... I need wider than 24mm (16-18) and something approaching 70-85mm on the long end (50mm is too short)<br />2: Distortion<br />... the distortion on the 24-85 isn't bad, but it's terrible on the 18-105<br />3: Clarity<br />... my 24-85 seems plenty clear with good contrast<br />4: Close focusing<br />... with my 24-85, i've not needed a "real" macro and i shoot enough random close details that a "built-in" macro is handy<br />So far, in addition to my existing 24-85, I've paired it down to 2 others -- each with pros and cons (and eliminating another -- the 18-105)<br /><br />

// Nikon 18-105: (I'm eliminating this one).<br />pros:<br />-- I own it (came with the D7000)<br />cons:<br />-- distortion + vignetting<br />-- 3.5 base aperture<br />-- poor built quality<br />-- VR1<br /><br />

// Nikon 25-85/2.8-4macro

pros:<br />-- I own it<br />-- 2.8 base aperture<br />-- Fairly clear (by my estimation)... so this might be a good measure against the other lenses<br />-- Macro capabilities<br />-- Nice build quality (by my estimation)... so this might be a good measure against the other lenses<br />cons:<br />-- 24mm is limiting on the wide side<br />-- Lack of VR or OS (image stabilization)<br /><br />

// Nikon 16-85/3.5-5.6<br />pros:<br />-- Wide end flexibility<br />-- VR2<br />cons:<br />-- No macro<br />-- 3.5 base aperture<br />-- Cost (higher)<br /><br />

// Sigma 17-70/2.8-4-OS<br />pros:<br />-- Cost (lower)<br />-- Macro<br />-- 2.8 base aperture<br />-- OS<br />cons:<br />-- 15mm less on the long end<br />-- Not a nikon-brand lens (does this matter?)<br /><br />

It really seems the decision is between the Sigma 17-70 and the Nikon 16-85... and the Sigma seems to be pulling ahead on paper. Your thoughts appreciated (and thanks for your patience and wisdom).<br /><br /><br />

</p>

<p>Thanks for the input. If the only true difference is the macro, then it's likely going back to Amazon. When I purchased it, i thought it might have some magical qualities (better subject/background separation, etc.)... but then I obviously started to doubt the decision. Thanks again for the wisdom -- much appreciated (it's been a while since I've bought/looked-at new gear).</p>

<p>Thanks Dan (and Matthew): The 24-85/2.8-4D is also macro, though (and does a nice job)... so...</p>

<p>hi: i recently picked up the D7000 kit and took advantage of the $100 rebate to pick up the lower end 85/3.5 lens. i have a 24-85/2.8-4D lens which i love and i'm thinking that the new lens is redundant.</p>

<p>given that i have the zoom, is there a reason to keep/use the 85prime? "bokeh" better?</p>

<p>thanks for your insight...</p>

<p>fwiw: i purchased the kit last week from amazon and got the $100 rebate on the 85mm lens (arrived tuesday)... but not sure if i'm going to keep it as i've a 24-85/2.8-4D which i love (so i'm not sure if there's a reason to have the 85prime, but that'll be in another thread). the $400 rebate was for the $1000+ lenses.</p>

if anyone has an earlier version of flexcolor (4.65 or earlier), please contact me:

hunter@hlwimmer.com ... thanks a ton.

hi guys... in a bit of a panic here and hope your collective wisdom can help.

 

i rented a hassy digital back (CFV - 16MP)... many of the shots went well, but the shots on one chip seem

fouled somehow.

 

-- although i formatted the chip when inserting it into the back, when (later) connected to my computer

(through a CF card reader), the chip was named "leaf somethinganother" (not HASSELBLDISK like the

others)

-- when shooting, i was getting previews

-- files are "there" at about 20 to 22MB ranges... now transferred to my hard drive)

-- other files from other chips import easily into flexcolor, but not these (even though when looking at

them on a hard drive, the appear the same).

 

needless to say, these are very important images and am willing to do most anything to get them

converted to DNG files (including paying for the service).

 

thanks for your wisdom. please send any ideas to hunter@hlwimmer.com

hi guys... its been a while since my last visit and i'm about to scour the boards for similar

posts...

 

just purchased an epson 2200 to replace the retired 1270 -- which delivered beautifull

prints, but finally gave up.

 

hooked the machine up, installed drivers and updates, loaded epson paper, epson inks,

etc and printed 2 images that came put beautifully on the 1270... the grayscale image

came out pink and the color image was otherwise quite off...

 

anyone else have a similar problem?