zoid

October 12, 2016

This little guy was difficult to photograph.

<center>Nikon D3, Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D micro, 1/250s, f16, ISO 200</center>

October 12, 2016

<center>Nikon D3, Nikkor AF 105mm f/2.8D micro, ISO 200, 1/125s, f8</center>

Posted March 1, 2011 · March 1, 2011

I have this lens. It's a nice optic. A steady hand can get good shots on the long end, but a monopod/tripod is a good friend for the 75-300mm AF.

That said, the FULL / LIMIT allows the lens to use its 'macro range' as part of the focus search. The 'macro range' is the part of the focus distance scale and it is shown as a solid orange bar along the lens distance scale. Obviously, this orange bar is on the short side of the distance index. By setting the Lens to LIMIT, the lens will stay out of the focusing range that is more useful for macro work, which will speed up its AF use because the lens is locked out of that last bit of close focusing. This feature really works well on this lens, and the 28-105mm AF-D, which also has a FULL / LIMIT switch. I own both lenses, and love them both for this feature.

When I'm using this lens for general shooting at long distance, I always set the LIMIT / FULL switch to LIMIT. That way, the lens will cycle faster to lock in focus. When I want to make use of the lenses macro feature (and I actually have an 11x14 wall hanger from this lens in macro mode), I set the switch to FULL so I can focus more closely. As far as I know, there are no other reasons to utilize this switch, or secret tricks.

I was sorry to see the lens disappear from production. For what uses it was designed for, it works very well. I hope your sample works as well, or better than mine. I will probably never get rid of my version of this lens.

February 23, 2011

I use different modes for different situations on my N90s. Most of the time, Aperture priority works fine for me. I'll switch to shutter priority occassionally for maximum sync speed with indoor flash, since I don't have the stupid Photo Secretary to change the default sync speed of the N90s. Still scratching my head on Nikon's philosophy there. When out shooting nature, and still life's, I prefer manual mode so that I can meter a scene's elements and select my settings from that. And when occasionally shooting snaps at get togethers with family/friends, I drop into either Aperture priority, or Program mode and use the exposure compensation dial when necessary. In all honesty, Nikon's matrix balanced fill flash with a Nikon Speedlight is pretty good.

February 22, 2011

Hi, I own a few N90s. I have to admit, I've never had this problem before, that I can recall. I'm going to ask you a couple of stupid questions, because I don't know what your level of experience is, so please understand I mean no offense.

First of all, is the film ISO on the camera set to 'DX' on your N90s LCD display (left side of lcd display right above the shooting drive mode of single/continuous frames icons)? If you're using DX encoded film (I'm not sure you can get film without DX encoding these days, unless you're bulk loading), the camera may be reading an error between the film labeling and a 'manual override' on film speeds. If one is wanting to shoot a film speed at a different ISO, then a thin piece of electrical tape should be applied over the shiny foil encoded pattern on the film canister (or at least that was the only way I knew how to do it). I'm going to assume that you are using film you bought at a store that has DX encoding on it. So, is the DX icon on in the N90s lcd display? If not, see below:

If you push the ISO button on the N90s, it should not show any film speeds on the Camera's lcd panel. If your camera lcd does show a film speed when you press the ISO button, then rotate the command dial while holding down the ISO button. It doesn't matter which way you rotate the command dial as your just going to cycle through the film speeds. When you get to the top/bottom of the film speed list, the display should go blank where the film speed is listed and a new icon should appear to the left of the display that says 'DX' If the DX is illuminated try loading your film again.

I'm going to ask another stupid question. Are you pushing the shutter release one time to trigger the film loading? The N90s won't load film until you push the shutter release button one time. Then it will advance the film to the first frame (no cheating on frames with the auto load cameras ..... dang ;) ).

Hope this is of some help to you and my apologies, if this is trivial info for you.

February 22, 2011

I shot Olympus for many years before switching eventually to Nikon. I had an OM-1n, and an OM-G. Great cameras, great lenses, and great system. The Zuikos are/were just as good as anyone else.

That is a beautiful OM-3. Congrats on the find!

February 21, 2011

Thanks much, for the thoughts. While I have no experience with umbrellas, I had seemed to recall reading some considerations regarding soft boxes. I didn't want to invest in a technology that I would only become disatisfied with. My dollars need to be well spent these days.

February 20, 2011

Thanks for the thoughts guys. (I -always- forget about the art store.)

Already have the following:

Tripods: Already have Bogens: 3001, 3001S, and 3033 (all with heads).

Also have NDs, polarizers, etc. few gels.

1 small light disk (white/gold)

What i desperately need is a mount to get flash/umbrellas on the light stands. In the past, just used cheap cold shoes. I'd like to get an umbrella mount in metal that possibly included a cold shoe fitting (if possible). Anyone know of good inexpensive metal versions? Someone mentioned to me to get 10 degree offsets in the umbrella mounts. Is that wise?

I'm no stranger to foam core fabrication. :-)

Radio triggers are nice, but not cheap, require batteries/charging ... or are there some good inexpensive ones? For a small product setup, I think I'll stick with sync cords.

Are umbrellas better, or should I invest in small soft boxes?

February 19, 2011

Favorite film Nikon would be my N90s (all three of them). One AF sensor was all I needed for shooting horse shows, and such. After that, would me my Nikon FA. It's just a wonderful MF Camera. Seriously considering trying an FE. Digital Nikons ... I don't know. Don't have much experience with them ... yet.

February 18, 2011

Over the years, I've acquired a few things to get stuff done, but I've never actually put together a simple small studio system. I'm not trying to be a full blown pro, just a competent amateur. Id like to finish out a 'strobist-like' system. This is what I have accumulated so far:

3EA Bogen 3086 stands.

3EA Vivitar 285HV Flashes

3EA Nikon SB-27 Speedlights

1EA Nikon SB-26 Speedlight

1EA Nikon SC-17 Sync Cord

Various other Nikon Speedlights to use as a potential master

Various pc-sync cords, splitter, etc.

Polaris Digital Flashmeter

2EA cheap coldshoes (probably are now just junk).

1EA Wein optical trigger

1EA set of backdrop stands cloth/paper holder (medium version -- I think it expands to over 9 feet wide).

I know there are some talented people here on the lighting forum. And I hope to get some thoughts on an inexpensive way to finish out a system for illuminating small things and perhaps a simple portrait. If I were to get serious about lighting, I'd probably go with Paul Buff White Ligthnings in one of his pre-built kits, but not with this current economy.

Any help would me much appreciated. Right now, I'm thinking on the cheaper side of things.

February 17, 2011

@Patrick: Thanks for showing me a shot with the D700. I've been looking rather longishly at that camera.

@Dan: Thanks for the response. I've been looking at the 85mm f1.8 AF-D. I have the 85MM f2 Ai-S, and the 105mm f2.5 Ai. Both of them are marvelous lenses. I recently acquired an Ai-S 135mm f3.5 and have enjoyed having that focal length. I think I've held off on the DC lenses because I'm not sure if I'm going to go with DX, or hold off and take the plunge into FX. Obviously, on DX, 105, and 135 are both telephotos focal lengths. On FX, I'm not sure where I'd like to land with the 85-135 focal range. Having all three seems a bit too much, but that DC is something quite unique and very intriguing to play with. I do admit I love the built-in hoods of the older Nikkor Telephotos. I can certainly understand how you would enjoy it as well with the 135mm f2 DC. Hope you enjoy it.

February 17, 2011

Note to self: Always say, yes dear.

February 17, 2011

Perhaps we do have a few Z's in the house. :-)

I suppose I should clarify that both the F5, and the F100 weigh far less than the concrete hammer drill and other tools I tote around in my other life. And a day of shooting a horse show with two N90s and assorted gear is a bit of a chore. But not too terrible. Everyone does different things with their cameras. I feel real empathy for the photogs that shot sporting events with an F2, Motordrive, big lenses, and a 250 - exposure back all day. That, I'm sure, was a real chore.

February 17, 2011

An incredible lens with incredible characterstics.

I've been torn between the 105, and the 135. However, budgets being what they are in this economy is more an influence on buying right now, for me. I see no reason for Nikon to update these lenses to a g-type. They already seem to perform wonderfully the way they are. So, why add the cost to retool for a G-type? It's no secret that many (albeit not all) photographers are not really in love with the idea of missing aperture rings.

If I may ask, was there a reason for going with the 135 over the 105? Very nice shots.

February 17, 2011

@Chris: I agree with your points. Green is the poorest choice for a dominant color in certain lighting situations - my skin itches at the thought of it. I suppose I should add the caveat that I was speaking in terms of general indoor illumination. In regards to Tungsten Lighting, then 3200 K and 3500 K sources are what I have experienced. But I am afraid my memory is failing me why both 3200 K and 3500 K was available as a professional light source. Once I had to shoot a night shot with both High and Low Pressure Sodium lights peppered with Metal Halides. Interesting mix of color, that image was.

February 17, 2011

@Chris: I learned a lot about lighting when I went to lighting design school as an engineer in training. One interesting aspect of lighting design is dealing with reflectance and we studied why it is important to consider reflectance in lighting design (my photographic mind was in high gear when we hit that aspect). Latitude, and CC aside, 3200 K is not a bad guess, but in practice, I had at one time trained my eyes to recognize variances as much as 2300 K, to 4100 K for particular cases. It's been a few years since I've had to do that, but I will agree that there is a certain loveliness to finding 'quick' and 'optimum' white balance in many situations. The biggest difference I can see (and somewhat have experienced at a meager level) between shooting for hobby and shooting for name is the difference between a good image, and a good image. In my experiences, it has always come down to getting the shot. In the end, that is what matters most. Whether a photographer chooses to do more work in the field, or in PP is a matter of personal taste, the subject under exposure, the time constraints of shooting, and of course ... the desired outcome. Digital is here to stay. I take no offense to its presence in the photographic industry. I will say that when it comes to photography as a form of art, I sincerely hope that the industry will at least offer film for those who still wish to use it. Grain in itself, can be a texture added to an image. And done well, grain can be quite lovely to encounter in a photograph. I suppose I'm stuck somewhere between the Journeyman and the Master both in digital, and film mediums. Tough times these days.

February 17, 2011

@Chris: LOL. No I mean the growing number of photomic finders out there that aren't being repaired. I knew several years ago, that the resistive part that the photomics used was (at the time) getting scarce, and I encouraged a friend to get his F's photomic meter repaired while he still could (which he did indeed get repaired). I don't know if the parts ever dried up, but in what I remember from 8 years ago, parts were getting pretty scarce. So, in short, whenever I see an F, or an F2 with an inoperative meter, I wonder now if they're still repairable (assuming the resistive part is the failure point).

As far as having a light meter see light your way, that is where working with colored lights gets to be a bit of a challenge. If one wishes to use colored lights to invoke a mood, well, that could be grounds for throwing much of the 'standard' exposure rules out the door. Normally daylight exposure works with a varying orange to white to blue tweaking of 5500 deg. K light (or something thereof). Dusk can get even more colorful to work with. However, when working with studio/stage lighting to, in effect, paint with colored light, well, I think that could get problematic in regards to color balance. I haven't worked with such types of photography (outside of magenta filters for the old fluorescent lighting days), but now I think I'd rather fill with flash.

I know concert photographers have done very non-standard things with film and, in particular, slide film (pushing and such) to get results and effects that have turned out to be quite desirable.

The only other instance where I can think of color correction being critical is with slide film in which color balance was 'critical.' In those cases, a good color meter could be handy. And if memory serves, those color meters were a few thousand dollars and not much in terms of weight for the $$$.

With digital, I do believe it is actually possible to measure color temperature in what I recall from reading my NEF files using Gimp and DCRaw (sorry, I run a Linux box, and I've been Windows free for a few years now). That was something that I had not realized with digital cameras was the inherent ability to use them as a crude color meter.

February 17, 2011

Understand the meaning of the failed Nikon light meters. There is the f16 rule, but that's off topic for this thread. I never needed a color meter. It wasn't that hard to know what the color temperature was during the course of a typical day. I could always just look it up. Meticulous metering is handy, but I found it was always easier to find the center, and then check for latitude, then check for proper Zone. As far as blown red channels, every time I loaded a new roll of film, I was in essence loading a new CCD. Chimping isn't chimping in every situation. There are different types of photographers and they have to fight different situations with photography. Shooting models is a bit different than shooting breaking events which is a bit different than shooting landscapes. Knowing the baseline for exposure is fundamental. Then, a photographer adapts rules of thumbs for what they shoot. But in the beginning, I think it's best to know the basics. One may not always be shooting models throughout their career.

February 16, 2011

I have found that reflective light meters work pretty well until the ultimate problem:

Bride in off-white dress with fair skin. Well-tanned groom in black suit. Outdoor shoot under shaded lighting, fill flash required.

Nail it in one shot with the super-advanced camera reflective light meter? Use the Zone System? Or just take an incidence light reading and set the camera and flash?

I actually had this problem when I shot my sister's wedding as the photographer. I went with the incidence light meter reading and got the shot. I'm no pro, but I have learned when to trust the camera meter, and when not to.

February 16, 2011

Ellis +1, Craig +1

Incident light meters are the way I prefer to go, albeit with some hard-learned tweaks regarding equipment.

An 18% gray card can convert nearly any camera meter to read incidence light. It does take some skill to use a gray card, but not much. I recently just replaced my old worn-out gray card and I was elated to find that I could still get one.

A gray card can be most handy with film photography as most negative films have enough latitude to handle an exposure +/- a stop and some film (used to?) can have as much as 2 stops of latitude with minimal loss to image quality. Slide film is less forgiving, but I think it has beautiful color rendition.

I do believe an incidence meter won't help one much when using flash indoors (excluding fill-flash scenarios). But that's another topic all together. As for digital photography, I'll let someone who is more versed on it take that wheel. I only dabble with digital.

February 16, 2011

I suppose if I had to choose between an F5, or an F100 I'd probably go with an F100. Mainly because I'm accustomed to my Nikons that have less than 100% viewfinders (like my N90s, FA, etc.). I found when I borrowed an F5, I had to constantly remember that the viewfinder shows me more than 100%. And while I could easily become accustomed to using a Nikon that sports a +100% viewfinder, all of my other gear has less than 100% finders.

I frame tighter when using my Nikons with the reduced finders, and I don't like the extra pause I have to naturally invoke when I use use a camera with a +100% finder. I love the F3, but the MD-4 is much more cumbersome than my MD-15 on my FA, and it is why I've stuck with Nikons that have less than 100% viewfinders.

Conversely thinking, I wonder if someone who has primarily Nikons with +100% finders would feel confined with the less than 100% viewfinder of the F100. Every shooter has different tastes, and there is a certain logic in having standards with one's equipment. Just as some users are comfortable using any finder.

The F5 is a little heavier than the F100, but I found the weight difference to be insignificant. I suspect that the F5 is much less in weight than an F2 with a Motordrive and battpack. And I found the F5's weight to be insignificant when compared to my N90s with MB-10, or my FA with MD-15. I found the F5 and the F100 to be equally comfortable to hold and use.

Mirror lock-up is a handy feature that I have only used when shooting at nighttime, and I found that my N90s (with MF-26) and its built-in timer function closed the mirror and started the countdown to the shutter release on long exposures. The end result, was the same as a mirror lock-up. I got the shot, that's all I cared about. I don't own any of those special Nikkors that require a mirror lock-up, and I doubt that I would invest in one of them that does. If I did pick up such a lens, well, there are plenty of Nikon F, F2, and etc cameras out there that could be acquired so that I could use the lens.

In reading the OP's comments, they appear to elude in their posts that they own, or are acquiring an F6. If that is the case, then the question I have is does the OP want a standard in their camera's finders? If so, then the choice would be the F5, if it does not matter then either the F5, or the F100 would work. The next big difference being about a couple of $100USD difference in cost. Trivial considering what these cameras sold for new.

September 22, 2010

This photo is from about 12 years ago, and I just scanned the proof since I don't have a Coolscan or such. So color balance isn't spectacular.

September 22, 2010

Horses? How ironic! I was planning to pull some of my stuff out from a few years ago and do a little retro this week from my archive of amateur work. This photo is from about 12 years ago, and I just scanned the proof since I don't have a Coolscan or such. So color balance isn't spectacular.

September 21, 2010

Monet, if you have a good set of 35mm Primes then you may be very wise to go with the D700. Everyone talks fast zooms ... I think a D700 with 35mm 50mm and 85mm (or 105, or maybe a 180 depending on size of church), would be more than adequate.

I hired a good friend and a local pro photographer to shoot my wedding 12 years ago. He did the whole wedding with an F100, MB-15, Nikkor 24-120mm, SB-28 on a strobe-frame and one white lightning monolight with one umbrella (for the group shots on the altar). Pictures looked awesome.

Shooting DX is fine, there's nothing wrong with it, but if you've got FX glass that is good stuff (AF glass at that), then the D700 maybe be a good 'investment' and not a 'solution.' Only you can decide if you want to jump forward with digital photography and FX, or not. Were it me, I would go with the D700 if I could generate the business.

Someone did make a comment about big metropolitan style wedding photography and smaller town wedding photography ... That poster is correct, at least in my experiences as well. There are different expectations there from those different types of customers. Make sure your clients know what they want, and of course, make sure you can deliver that. But you probably already know that since you've been shooting for a while.

Best of luck to you, and I hope you have fun doing it ... and make a little jingle along the way.

September 18, 2010

The D700 would probably be my choice of the two you specify for a serious biz camera. The question I have is: Do you already have FX/35MM lenses to use with the D700, or would you have to add glass too?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by zoid