michael_c18

<p>Thanks for the input!</p>

<p>Mike: for both shots, the photo is the full frame, shrunk down to 700px wide, and the close-up/inset in the lower right is a 100% view of the region around the mark. I had a lens fitted at the time, and though it has some small dust on the rear element, there's nothing major. My budget is around $400, stretching to $450, tops. I looked for a used D90 but they were all well above that...any other recommendations for that price range? I've borrowed a D200 for about 9 months and like the size (and I'm satisfied with the features and image quality), but I haven't tried a smaller body yet either. I do occasionally use the built-in CLS commander on the D200, and would miss that somewhat on a body that didn't have it. I also have a 50mm f/1.8D, which I'd use less on a body lacking a focusing motor. (Not a deal-breaker, though.)</p>

<p>Peter: I may do that...though there are a couple of people locally who just posted ads with used D200s, and I'm going to check them out and compare. If they aren't appreciably better, I'll likely just keep this one. How much weight would you give the KEH 6-month warranty vs. a local buy?</p>

<p>Ross: I've never cleaned a sensor; I've been too nervous about damaging it. I have a rocket blower, which I tried, but it didn't move the fiber (or whatever it is). Lacking a wet-cleaning kit, I'm not sure I can do much more.</p>

<p>Bruce: I did that, and I found the mark. Visually, it looks quite sharp and unusually straight; I'm used to debris being curved or wiggly, so I'm not sure what to make of that. It's reassuring that it may not be a scratch, though.</p>

<p>Wouter: it does seem to check out in all other respects: it focuses well, the flash functions appropriately, the screw drive works, and the frame is illuminated evenly at 1/8000. No hot pixels or mechanical damage, etc. Just curious, what other artifacts would you expect if this were a scratch? (Hopefully it is not!)</p>

<p>Again, thanks to everyone for the help!</p>

<p>Second photo:</p><div></div>

<p>First photo:</p><div></div>

<p>I just bought a D200 from KEH (in BGN condition) and I'm overall very pleased with the camera: it seems to function just fine and looks great (with some expected minor wear on the bottom at contact points).</p>

<p>However, after taking a look at the sensor (by taking a shot of an out-of-focus cloudy sky at f/22), I noticed not only the expected sensor dust, but what looks like a scratch, about 1/3 of the way in from the left and 1/3 of the way down from the top. Below is the shot with exaggerated contrast; the 100% view of the scratch is inset in the lower right. The original shot (SOOC, no manipulation of contrast) is beneath that, and still shows the scratch, though less visibly.</p>

<p>Is this something to worry about?</p>

<p>Also, the shutter has nearly 76,000 actuations, and from what I can tell the D200 is only rated to 100,000...of course, the shutter may not fail until well after that, but it also may fail before. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>I have to say, I'm inclined to send the camera back to KEH (within the 14-day return period) and hope for a better one on the next time around, but I thought I'd ask here first.</p>

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>I'm afraid I don't. My only knowledge of laser damage to image sensors is restricted to what I was able to find doing some searching. I did find a few journal articles talking about laser damage, but they always seemed to be talking about pulsed lasers (and often CCD rather than CMOS). This makes sense, since their focus was on using sensors for research in a lab. I've done some limited work imaging a laser beam in a lab, but it was heavily attenuated (and spread); we were very careful to keep from damaging the sensor.</p>

<p>The fact that the videos I found showed entire rows of pixels damaged is very curious, and I'm sure if I understood the design of CMOS image sensors better that it would be a giveaway. (Perhaps some component related to reading out the row is destroyed by the high voltage associated with intense light, or brief heating might cause adjacent rows to short out; I found that this is possible for CCD sensors with pulsed lasers.) Unfortunately, I can't do more than speculate. (If anyone wants a fairly technical description of image sensors, however, I found <a href="http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/digitalimaging/cmosimagesensors.html">this page</a> on Olympus's website.)</p>

<p>Thanks for all the input. I'm leaning away from the lens, simply because I can't try it before I buy it. And for a little more money, I could get an old Nikon 55 f/3.5 micro (AI), which I've heard plenty of good things about, without worrying so much about whether what I'm getting is worth it or not. I wouldn't mind the extra reach of the 105, but on DX I don't think 55 is terribly short.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm surprised to see the laser setup in a line of sight over the dance floor; it's presumably not in the U.S. where such practices are regulated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been to shows where the same kind of laser displays were used here in the U.S. I'm sure this kind of thing is regulated, as you say, so presumably the levels of light used are eye-safe (or companies would be sued out of existence), but that doesn't mean they're camera-safe...<br>

<br /><br>

I'm not sure if it's because of better light-gathering ability (the human eye has a maximum aperture of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Human_eye">about f/3.2</a>) or because camera sensors are more sensitive to damage, but sadly cameras and laser shows don't mix unless you've arranged with the laser operator a location where you can shoot safely.</p>

<p>I'm looking at a Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 macro lens. I thought these were all made by Kiron/Kino. However, the serial number starts with 31 (instead of 22), and is only 7 digits long (others I've seen are 8). The 31 prefix doesn't match up with any of the manufacturers listed <a href="http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm#serialno">here</a>, unfortunately. Is there any other way of figuring out who likely made this lens? And would it still be as desirable as the Kiron-made ones, or are there other models out there that don't perform/handle as well?</p>

<p>This has already been pretty well answered, I think, but for a little more thorough take on it you might want to check out these <a href="http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/18/raw-vs-jpg-the-final-discussion/">blog</a> <a href="http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/19/so-i-shot-in-raw-format-now-what/">posts</a> by Neil van Niekerk, a wedding photographer whose blog I follow. Bottom line: in a very few specialized circumstances, JPEG is the way to go. But otherwise, RAW all the way. Also, in the second link he explains a little bit about processing RAW images.</p>

<p>Patrick, good point. I never even thought to weigh them! I pulled out my kitchen scale and found that the camera + 17-50 is about 3 1/2 pounds; with 24-70, a bit under 4 1/2 pounds; and with the 70-200, it's nearly 5 pounds and 11 ounces. Not sure how likely I am to lug that one around while hiking, but it'd be nice to have the option to stick it on a tripod if I did.</p>

<p>Dave, I can't believe I didn't think to look for used. That sounds like a great solution; thanks for the tip! I didn't even think to check KEH; I only think of them for bodies and lenses...</p>

<p>I'm looking for a cheap tripod to grab some photos while hiking that include me in them. I already have a nice, solid tripod for normal use, but I'm looking for something lighter and more compact that's easy to take hiking. The primary concerns are weight and price; I realize that I won't find anything high quality with those conditions, but I'm okay with that. (I'd also like to be able to get enough height that full-length people shots won't look too weird.)</p>

<p>I have a Nikon D200 (potentially moving up to a D700 soon) and would be mostly using a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens with it, though I wouldn't mind being able to use my Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. I already have a Manfrotto 496RC2 ball head, which I'd probably use to save on cost.</p>

<p>My price range could maybe go up to $70, but ideally would be $50 or less. I've looked at getting a Gorillapod SLR Zoom, but I'm not totally sure it'd take the weight of my setup above (plus my ball head). Plus, I've read that Gorillapods can be really annoying to get positioned properly when trying to frame a shot. I also poked around on B&H and found <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/366412-REG/Sunpak_620_005B_DigiPro_Compact_B_Tripod.html">this Sunpak tripod</a>, which fits the bill except potentially not holding enough weight... What would you recommend for me to look at? Gorillapod, tripod, other options?</p>

<p>Thanks for any advice!</p>

<p>@Peter Hamm: not to threadjack, but are there any older lenses that go to 1:1 without using an adapter? I'm interested in a cheaper way to get into macro photography, and the 55mm f/3.5 AI micro lenses are incredibly cheap on KEH, but I'm thinking I'd miss the range from 1:1 to 1:2 (and I don't know what the performance is like with the adapter). Or should I just look for a lens + adapter and be happy with that?</p>

<p>Hopefully this is relevant to the OP too, since reproduction ratio may be important to them.</p>

<p>Okay, thanks! I figured this had to be unusual behavior, since the Skyports seem generally well-regarded, but I wanted to double-check. I'll chalk it up as a bad cable or maybe weak batteries.</p>

<p>Yeah, they had enough time to cycle. One really odd thing is that the amount of the sync error wasn't consistent. That is, above 1/160th, different amounts of the frame would be darker on different shots (ranging from maybe 1/4 of the frame dark, to only a narrow strip <em>not</em> being dark), even though the shutter speed and everything else were unchanged. To me, that's the most puzzling thing about it.</p>

<p>Zach: the connection to the SB900's PC port <em>was</em> loose; the photographer I was borrowing the Skyports from said he usually wraps the cord around the flash to keep it from coming out. So a somewhat-loose connection could cause sync issues? I figured it might make the flash not fire, but since the flash was firing I figured the slight loose connection wasn't an issue. As far as the sync speed of an SB-900 when not using CLS, I'm not sure. I do know that when used on-camera there are no problems shooting at 1/250th.</p>

<p>Marios: I think part of my problem with triggering was getting the SB-900 on my camera lined up exactly right with the one I was trying to trigger. I'd left my on-commander flash zoomed all the way to 200mm, I think, which probably made it harder than it needed to be. I'll try again with it at a more moderate zoom.</p>

<p>Monika: I was using the Skyport with a Nikon D200, and I just stuck it in my hot shoe. It was triggering an SB-900 off-camera; it just plugged into the PC port on the flash, using a cord that had a 1/8" mono jack on one end and a PC jack on the other. A Skyport won't let you control a speedlight (as far as I know), but it will manually trigger one. If you have a flash without a PC port, you'll need to get a PC to hot shoe adapter, which will let you put your flash on the hot shoe of the adapter, and then plug the PC cord into the PC port. I saw <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2009/05/universal-translator-ushers-in-new-age.html">this one</a> on Strobist, which looked nice and versatile. It even lets you use a straight 3.5mm mono plug (on both ends), instead of a PC jack, which would be very nice.</p>

<p>Don't any of the flashes with commander mode work with the new MiniTT1/FlexTT5 too? (Not just the SU-800?) The <a href="http://wiki.pocketwizard.com/index.php?title=MiniTT1_and_FlexTT5_Key_Features">wiki</a> seems to indicate this...</p>

<p>I'm getting started with lighting and I have two SB-900 flashes. I've found Nikon's CLS to work great indoors due to the signals getting bounced around off walls and such, but I was recently at a workshop and had some trouble shooting outside. This morning, however, I tried again and as long as I was fairly close, I wasn't having any real problems using one on-camera in commander mode. (It was pointed at the sensor on the side of the other one, which was on a stand, sticking out the back of a softbox.) What are others' experiences with using this kind of setup, outside, in direct sun? In other words, what kind of range and what success rate should I expect?</p>

<p>On a related note, at the workshop (after I was having a great deal of difficulty getting my remote flash to trigger), one of the photographers there kindly let me borrow his Elinchrom Skyport, so I could try them out. They worked much better, except that for some reason I was getting banding at 1/250th and even 1/200th (my D200's max sync speed is 1/250th). The amount of banding seemed erratic, but I couldn't eliminate it until I dropped to 1/160th, which was kind of limiting outside. The photographer who owned them said he'd never had any problems shooting at 1/250th, but he was using a different camera and flashes. Is there any reason you can think of why I'd see banding above 1/160th?</p>

<p>Alan: that is a very creative use of a dog leash! I'd never even thought of using one like that before.</p>

<p>Mark: thanks for the tips. I'm definitely leaning toward using a monopod when it's allowed by the venue; it just helps so much! I think I'll have to try out converting to B&W and using the grain as a feature, not a bug. I actually did something like that recently (for a portrait) quite by accident...I brightened up a rather underexposed shot, which (predictably) showed noticeable noise. But I was going for a grittier look anyway, so the noise plus B&W actually turned out fairly nice.</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments. They make a lot of sense. Steve T - I really need to make a string monopod. Maybe for this, but definitely for carrying when I'm out and about and find a shot in low light: my monopod is small, but not so small I just carry it everywhere. But some string and a few bolts? Why not?</p>

<p>I'll make sure to check with the venue, as several others suggested. So far, just starting out, I've only done a couple of concerts; one was at a house, and the other specifically said monopods were fine. But clearly some places don't like them. I'd never thought of the tripping hazard...</p>

<p>Marios: nice shots! I guess I can't blame the D200 if I don't like my results in low light, then. I just need to work on getting the exposure right on. I'll try those tips. You said while shooting from among the crowd, you wouldn't use a monopod, because "you never know what's going to happen and it's seriously NOT worth risking it." Were you talking about the same things as the other posters (e.g., what if there's a fire and people trip over the monopod)? Or something else?</p>

<p>Also, I think I should get some good noise reduction software, since right now I don't have anything that helps much.</p>

<p>I'm curious what your thoughts are on the use of a monopod at concerts, or other events with dim lighting. I recently shot a concert of a local indie artist (for practice, not for money), and though the lighting was a bit better than some concerts I've been to it was still pushing what I would have been able to pull off handheld. I was getting speeds of around 1/80th at f/1.8 and ISO 800 (I don't like to go any higher on my D200, if possible). Using a couple of slower lenses (or going for more DOF), I was down around 1/40th, which is slow.</p>

<p>However, using a monopod, I was able to get some pretty clean shots—I was even able to use longer focal lengths for some tight shots. I haven't seen monopods mentioned much for concerts, though, so I wondered if they were usually avoided. (Note that this was a rather sedate, everyone-sitting-down concert, not a rowdy rock concert. I have no idea how practical a monopod would've been with a lively crowd.)</p>

<p>Thoughts? What do you do in dim situations where you don't have the space for a tripod?</p>

<p>Thanks for the ideas! I'd definitely never heard of some of them before (using a kite? wow). I'll have to keep them in mind. And specifically with regard to using a monopod (which is the only extra equipment I have for this at the moment), I'll remember the framing difficulties and possible exposure problems. Thanks again!</p>

<p>I'm a relative newcomer to photography, and one of the things I've been trying to do as I'm learning is to explore different angles for shooting. I've found that sometimes a low angle makes a photo much more interesting. Fortunately, it's easy enough to get low: just crouch or lay prone. But how can I get a higher angle, in situations where steps or a wall aren't handy?</p>

<p>My one idea was to carry a monopod and a remote shutter release, and then just hoist the camera up and hope I get a framing I like. This seems like it could work, but it's not a very precise way of doing things. What other suggestions do you have?</p>

<p>First of all, I've only had the SB-900, and second of all, I've only had mine for a few months. So I can't compare it to others (like the SB-800), and I can't say that I've tried to use all of the features it supports.</p>

<p>However, for normal use, it's not at all difficult to use. I've used it in TTL and TTL-BL mode, in manual mode, and in SU-4 mode (as an optical slave), and none of the above were too difficult (the SU-4 wasn't as intuitive to get set up, for some reason, but it wasn't too bad). As you said, the main controls don't require any use of menus; they're just right there on the back. I don't see complexity as a reason not to get it.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone, for the comments on the pros and cons of the newer PW triggers. I'll have to weigh the usefulness of TTL and remote settings control, or not. Scott, those look like they'd be a great alternative to the manual-only PW Plus II triggers: most of the reliability at a fraction of the cost. If I decide to go all-manual there's a good chance I'll pick those.</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>