reid_priedhorsky

March 29, 2010

Richard, I'd be skeptical that the 10.5 corrected to rectilinear would come out very good. I could be wrong obviously, but before you count on this, find some samples and really examine them.

March 24, 2010

I used a Pentax K200D for a while and switched to a D90.

Regarding the image stabilization, I find having it in the lens much more satisfying. You can see it work: you're looking through the viewfinder watching the world wiggle around, and then when you push the shutter release halfway and the stabilization activates, bang! it's suddenly rock solid. It's viscerally satisfying, and the sensor-shift stabilization in Pentax cameras simply can't provide this (because the corrective elements aren't in the viewfinder's optical path).

Compared to Nikon and Canon, there's much less third-party interest in the system, so there's many fewer gadgets and accessories.

One other thing that may be of interest if you're into superzooms: The Nikkor 18-200 is far nicer than the Pentax 18-250, particularly when vignetting is a concern; I have a <a href="http://blog.reidster.net/2009/11/vignetting-analysis-pentax-da-18-250-vs.html">blog post</a> on that.

Good luck,

Reid

March 2, 2010

I'm able to spend what I need, If a good lens is $1500+, then I just need to save a little longer to get there.

</blockquote>

Weston,

There are many many tradeoffs when choosing lenses. Since you haven't specified well what kind of photos you want to make, you'll get recommendations based on either (a) the replier's own preferences or (b) the replier's probably-erroneous interpretation of what your preferences are. People here LOVE to recommend lenses; if you want recommendations useful to you , you'll need to provide more info about what you're after. You should also say which lens(es) you have now . If it's none, get one ASAP so you can start making photos - any modern Nikon lens will be Just Fine . I'd suggest a new thread with a carefully worded subject line.

That said, the 18-200 is a great lens to get started with. It is highly flexible and the optical quality is quite good. Other lenses will have optical quality which is even better at the cost of dramatically less flexibility. It's a fine lens to go with your D300s.

To answer your original question, the 18-200 I and 18-200 II are optically identical. I have a version I and don't have any zoom creep issues; YMMV of course. If you choose this lens, I'd suggest a used version I from KEH to save some money.

HTH,

Reid

February 26, 2010

Second the motion for a good charger/analyzer. I have a LaCrosse BC-900 which can test and recondition individual cells.

I just write a number on each cell.

I've got a script to manage groups and testing. It gives output like the below. See http://reidster.net/software/ if you want it.

Reid<div></div>

February 23, 2010

Reid, I think what I and other posters are trying to tell you is that as far as we are aware your"weight budget" simply does not get you the kind of tripod you are looking for.

</blockquote>

Thanks Robin, I appreciate the direct answer.

February 23, 2010

I am very curious about your opinion of the the results you attained with your Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR on your recent Grand Canyon adventure.

</blockquote>

I'm happy with it. (Anyone who's interested in seeing the trip report when it comes out, subscribe to my blog at http://blog.reidster.net or send me an e-mail in a few months.) I think any failures are my fault rather than the lens'.

Reid

February 23, 2010

Thanks everyone! Here are some responses.

If you want high-quality images, I would suggest focusing on one type of subjects at a time.

</blockquote>

One issue is that in a place like the Grand Canyon, wildlife opportunities are few an unexpected; e.g., in 9 days, we saw one frog, one herd of deer, two tiny black birds, one mountain goat (score!), etc. So if I were to say "for the next hour, I'll shoot wildlife" it's probable that I'd get nothing and would miss out on other shots.

Of all the lenses above I can't recommend the 180/2.8 highly enough. If you need that focal range it is a can't miss lens.

</blockquote>

A long prime would be fun; on the other hand, I agree with Shen that if I got a prime for wildlife, it should be longer than 200mm, and then they're starting to get heavier than the 70-300 which offers a pretty nice zoom range.

You're basing your lens selection on a recent photo trip to the Grand Canyon?

</blockquote>

Yep! I've been to the Grand Canyon backcountry 7 times and other parts of the Colorado Plateau wilderness 33 times. It's a big part of my life. :)

did you also chart your aperture usage

</blockquote>

I did not; that's a good idea. I did notice that in the low-light times around sunset I was pushing the ISO rather high frequently.

The 18-200 is a great compromise. ARe you unhappy with the images you are shooting with it? Or are you just looking to see what additional lenses you might be interested in?

</blockquote>

No, and yes - I'd like to think about how to develop my kit as I develop my craft further.

Essentially there are contradicting goals here.

</blockquote>

Yes, yes there are. That's why I was curious to see what the photo.net community might come up with. :)

Some random kit ideas:

keep the 18-200 only

10.5 fisheye + 18-200

10.5 fisheye + 16-85

10-24 + 18-200

16-85 + 55-200VR

16-85 + 70-300VR

Reid

p.s. for those who are interested, here's the script to generate the graph: http://reidster.net/software/exif-fl-hist

February 22, 2010

Here's the histogram (apparently photo.net doesn't like PNGs).<div>

00Vpyu-222973684.jpg.4de5783f45e20d83980235218fec555a.jpg

</div>

February 22, 2010

Hi all,

Here's a histogram of focal lengths used on a recent Grand Canyon adventure, using my D90 plus one lens, the 18-200.

Based on this - what are your suggestions for modifying my lens kit, keeping in mind that weight is at a major premium and I often don't have time to change lenses (particularly when I've been taking landscapes and wildlife suddenly appears).

Thanks,

Reid

February 21, 2010

You don't say where you are, which is important for this sort of thing. The following assumes you're in the US.

Basically, when in public places you're legally permitted to take photos of anything you like, including children, and you can put such photos on the Internet (though if you are making money, you need a model release - there's a distinction between editorial and commercial uses).

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/03/legal-guide-for.html

That said, if someone asks you to stop taking pictures of them, it would be appropriate courtesy to do so. But, you aren't required by law to do so.

Finally, an editorial comment: please don't be so timid about your rights. Otherwise, you facilitate the erosion of photographer's rights everywhere.

Reid

February 21, 2010

Ted, 2 pounds is about 900g, well above my weight budget.

February 21, 2010

Thanks folks. I should clarify that I really am interested in whether there are any tripods larger than tabletop size that meet that weight budget. So while I appreciate the suggestions for heavier ones, they really aren't addressing my question.

The Sprint Mini is intriguing - is there something along those lines that's lighter, perhaps using CF?

Of the classic light, cheap, and sturdy, light is of much greater importance than the other two.

I do have an inexpensive Slik tabletop tripod that weights 300g, but I find it too fiddly for what I get (a stable platform at the surface level). If the answer turns out to be no, you can't get a larger tripod for that weight budget, I'll just take a small beanbag instead.

Thanks,

Reid

February 20, 2010

I take my gear on extended backpacking trips and am musing about support options, so weight is a major issue.

Given a weight budget in the 300-500g range, are there any non-tabletop tripods in existence? I'm perfectly happy to sit or squat - doesn't have to be full height. I wouldn't need to support more than 1.5kg nor shoot longer than 150mm.

Does such a beast exist?

Thanks,

Reid

February 3, 2010

I think that you would be perfectly happy with any of the D40, D3000, or D5000. There are all fine cameras. Get it with the 18-55mm kit lens, which is a fine lens and an excellent value for its cost, and then stop worrying and start shooting. :)

February 2, 2010

You can clean contacts yourself using this or similar products:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/DeoxIT-D100L-Pen-Contact-Rejuvenator/dp/B001EQ7H82">http://www.amazon.com/DeoxIT-D100L-Pen-Contact-Rejuvenator/dp/B001EQ7H82</a>

It's easy and I've successfully done it many times on non-photographic electronics. I wouldn't hesitate to use it on photo gear (assuming great care to keep the solution off glass, sensor, etc.) that was out of warranty and wouldn't rule it out even if in warranty.

I don't think the fact that is works on the F5 is evidence one way or another; the two cameras could be subtly different enough that it only manifests on the D300. Similarly, it could be the case that the D300 is at fault and it only manifests with the TC (though this is less likely IMO).

Good luck,

Reid

January 31, 2010

I think that lens takes 67mm filters, no?

January 31, 2010

Also I just dread that either my 13 month old or my 5 year one will touch the lens.

</blockquote>

It's not hard to clean lenses; do a search on here and I'm sure you'll find plenty of instructions (but discount the paranoia - lenses are pretty tough). Fingerprints are one of the harder things to clean, but that's because everything else is so easy. For this I use ROR plus a clean microfiber cloth (with a blower and brush first).

You would want to use the same techniques for cleaning a filter; the only difference is that it would be less nerve-wracking because it's cheaper.

That said, here's a test. Will the filter protection make you more comfortable photographing your kids? If so, you're likely to get closer and that will lead to better pictures, and you will also make more images and be more experimental, because you are more comfortable with the equipment. In this case, I suggest that a filter is appropriate for you in these situations (just know that really what you're paying for is peace of mind, which is a valid thing to pay for).

January 30, 2010

Whether or not to use a protective filter is controversial. It does add some degree of protection, but it degrades image quality, particularly if you use a cheaper (i.e. fewer coatings) one, and it makes it more difficult to use additional filters (e.g. a polarizer). It also will not help in more serious droppings or other accidents.

My advice would be to think about it in terms of your personal tendencies and where you want to take photos. If you don't generally have trouble with accidential bumps and knocks among your other possessions, and if you're not taking photos in places that are particularly filthy/dusty/wet and/or chaotic, don't worry about it.

I personally do not use a protective filter and instead avoid damage to my lenses by just trying to be meticulous and careful (e.g., I always cap the lens unless it's actually being used, I never take the camera out of the back without the strap around the body, and when handing the camera to someone else I insist they do the same with the strap and don't let go until they do).

January 28, 2010

Not to be a spoilsport, but making a career of photography is extraordinarily difficult, and your expression of limited budget and being in a hurry makes me worried.

Here's Laurence Kim -- one of the best -- on what gear it takes to start a wedding photography business. In particular, he recommends a budget of at least $4,000.

http://laurencekimblog.com/index.php?link=140&cat=16

January 27, 2010

Why are you doing this to me.... seeing these 17-50 pictures make me want to cry! Thank you all again for sharing your time and experience... I have ordered the D90 with the 18-200 lens kit

</blockquote>

I have the 18-200 and it's a dream. There are compromises, sure, but image quality is just fine, more than fine, and I'm sure the wide zoom range will help you learn. IMO, many people around here overweight IQ. "If image quality is paramount" is rarely true. And you absolutely do not need to stop down to f/9 for good quality.

To be blunt, I doubt most people could reliably tell the difference between shots with the 17-50 and the 18-200 except in carefully designed comparisons, unless the images were labeled. I think this is particularly true for you, as an inexperienced user.

Just shoot - you'll be happy. :)

January 26, 2010

I take quite a lot of indoor photos, mainly of my daughter, who moves very fast and so far the 18-105mm is ok, but I wonder if the 35mm or the 50mm lens will do a better job and due to lack of experience, I don't know which focal length I will use most.

</blockquote>

Two pieces of advice in that case.

First, don't be afraid to crank the ISO. I have a D90, and for family snaps, ISO 3200 is just fine and I don't hesitate to go all the way to 6400 (Hi1) if I need to. Not sure what the situation is on the D5000, but I'm sure it's not too different.

Second, since your existing zoom covers 35mm, you can experiment to see how you like it - perhaps add a bit of tape or a rubber band to hold it at 35mm if it drifts. Note that 35mm is a "classic" field of view on DX, and that lens is so cheap it's hard to go wrong.

January 25, 2010

The 35/1.8 is an excellent value and a good FL if you want a prime.

That said, you should buy gear only if you have a clear need for it. "I have heard that prime lens is good for traveling" is not a clear need. :) What specifically do you hope to do on your trip that can't be done with the 18-105 (which is itself a fine lens)?

January 25, 2010

FWIW, the difference between the D90 and D300s at B&H is over $700 now.

I agree with the above posters that you should pick your glass first.

Lastly - you should be able to articulate why you want a higher price point option over a lower; otherwise you are wasting your money. (You don't have to tell us your reasons, but you should have some.)

"if i was to buy a d90 i would rather spend the extra 400$ and get the d300s" is just silly if you don't need the extra features the D300s has, even if the difference was one penny (note that the IQ on these two cameras is basically identical). Same with e.g. the 70-200 vs. the 70-300.

January 24, 2010

How about a D90? It's way cheaper. What specifically do you need at the D200/D300 point that the D90 doesn't have?

January 24, 2010

p.s. off topic and self-promotional, but I find checklists very helpful for planning all the gear for this sort of thing, and I think mine is quite good: http://reidster.net/trips/equipment/

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by reid_priedhorsky