adam_nash2

I have indeed contacted the supplier, both their NY HQ and their Shenzhen based online and customer support. I’m still awaiting answers from each of them. Apparently “it’s a very new product”. Which does give me hope a firmware update would solve it.

Regarding the stills, we’ll not only would it automate panos and other types of still shots but it would simply replace the smaller tripod (in addition to the larger tripod I take) when travelling. Also positioning the camera when mounted instead of fiddling with levers and knobs is quite a joy.

Overall the thing is amazing, and small, I just need to iron out these kinks and they seem they might be reasonably easy fixes.

I recently purchased (the very new) Zhiyun Weebill Lab gimble to use with my X-T3 for both still and video use. I have two problems I hope people might be able to help me with.

(1) I can connect the ZY Play app to the gimble but I can’t get any Image transmition or control the camer. I can only see documentation for using Sony and LUMIX cameras with this and other models under the brand name. Any idea if Fuji cameras are supported and if so how to get this functionality working.

(2j The gimble features a“vortex” mode that is accessed by double tapping the POV button. This just doesn’t work.

This thread might be better off in another forum so if that’s the case, apologies and please feel free to move it appropriately.

Thanks,

Adam

<p>Excellent link, thank you Bill.<br>

Much appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks Wouter. If you get the lens back any time soon I would be very interested in hearing your findings as what I experience on the lens is on the one hand not normal in terms of the distance reading I am getting, but on the other hand I am not alone as I have read other reporting the same thing. I may take it to Nikon here in Dubai to get it checked out. </p>

<p>Deiter, again I think this is the way forward. To have at least a solid understanding of the principles but not feel the need to adhere to them so rigorously as to actually detriment the quality of the photo either through diffraction blue or worse, missing the shot.</p>

<p>A good post from my point of view (as well as the very informed PMs from Alan and John, much immediately implementable information acquired. </p>

<p>Thank you all,<br>

Adam</p>

<p>Wouter, I feel you, along with many other posters, right from the start of this post are probably right in that the benefits of hyperfocal distance might be slightly out of my value curve for the results it yields over less stringent techniques. </p>

<p>That Said, I do like at least fully understanding the concept as it brings me closer to a greater understanding of options and photography as a whole. I have a long trip coming up where I will have quite a bit of time on my hands towards the end of the day so plan to utilise this down-time by putting some of these techniques to test.</p>

<p>I have found the distance scale on the lens barrel of the 16-85 not "isn't very tight" it is completely wrong. I have a couple of specific questions you may be able to help me with.<br>

1) When you focus to the furthest object you can see, say the moon. What does your distance scale read? Mine is always about 1.5m! Utterly incorrect.<br>

2) When you turn the focus ring all the way, either to the left or the right, do you met some resistance but it doesn't stop? There is more friction but the ring keeps turning?</p>

<p>I would be very much interested to hear if your lens has the same anomalies as this may be a cause of my test image being so out of focus. I do get sharp images with the lend but only be relying on the autofocus, or manual focus. Never the readings.</p>

<p>Dieter, OK got it. I now understand your point and where you're coming from. Thank you for your clarification and taking the time to conduct some tests with an the actual lens model I have. Your results were very interesting. </p>

<p>Tim, again, thank you for the examples you posted and demonstrated both via the DOFmaster stuff and your own work. The tables charts and calculators have been bookmarked for experimentation when I get some time (and daylight) at the weekend. </p>

<p>Lots of very detailed and informative responses to get through, thank you all for sharing your time and knowledge. I will try and do them justice as much as possible.</p>

<p> John</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, most zoom lenses these days don't have DoF marks but the tables/calculators lead to the same result.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is correct, the only lens I have with markings is the 16-85 but they are completely unreliable. More on that below.</p>

<p>referring to focal length? Could you also explain your point..</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Much better to determine you focus point by using live view with magnification</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you mean pick a point by eye and trial and error rather than using an exact distance?</p>

<p> Deiter</p>

<blockquote>

<p>do you really believe that focusing on a spot 2ft away will give you a DOF that ranges from 1ft to 1 mile or 2 mile or 3 miles?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well if I am to believe what I read on this hyperfocal distance subject and unless I am misinterpreting something then yes. Have I got something wrong or do you just not agree with this method? Either way I will certainly, as John and yourself suggested, do some practicing. The fact remains though that whilst focussing at 59cm, my image was still pretty blurry. Not soft, blurry. </p>

<p>I have noticed in the past some very strange features relating to the relating to the distance marking on my 16-85. Essentially they are useless (I did not use them for my test shots, I went with a tape measure). When focussing on infinity my markings read about 1.5m. This is always the case and something I have researched. It seems others have the same issue but not all. </p>

<p>Alan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just checked a 16mm lens at f22. See below. It indicates you can get infinity in focus with the hyperfocal being at 58.2cm. I don't know why that would not work</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, that is what I got too and it most certainly was WAY out of focus. I will try again but it was not happening. </p>

<p>Alan Marcus<br>

Thank you for this and your even more detailed email. It went a long way in helping me understand the topic. Much appreciated!</p>

<p>Tim,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Derek Von Briesen is mimicking how we humans perceive depth, not how the camera records it.</p>

</blockquote>

So are we to presume that there has been some substantial post done on this image? That the image was once more uniformly sharp and he essentially worked in one, or a series of gradated sharpening/ softening filters or masks across the image to achieve the result.

Once again, thank you for your time,

Adam

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I am about to head off to Nepal trekking and plan to do quite a bit of landscape photography and timelapses. I have a couple of questions relating to hyperfocal distance. </p>

<p>1) I Haven't read anything that suggest otherwise but are the calculations the same when using a zoom lens? I have a number of lenses that I will be bringing with me, both prime and zoom. My primary landscape kit is a Nikon D7000, 16-85 and a 35mm 1.8. I guess a precursor to this questions would be, can you use hyperfocal distance with zoom lenses?</p>

<p>2) I am using a iPad app to help me calculate the distance. With a circle of confusion of 0.019, the lens set to 16mm and at f22 I am getting a distance calculation of between 58cm - 59cm. From there I set the camera to the above settings, get a tape measure and measure 59mm from the focal plane and set something there for the camera to focus on. Once done I switch to manual focus to avoid refocusing at a different distance. I then go ahead and take the photo though the results are certainly not in focus much beyond the 59cm mark. Am I missing something here?</p>

<p>Thanks for your help,<br>

Adam</p>

<p>Thanks Ray, They are my top choices</p>

<p>Farooq, Yes I'm in pretty good shape so I'm not that worried about the physical exertion but two days in I may be eating my words. I will be doing some training before hand too up a few mountains in Oman as a trial run. I hadn't considered the safety of my gear actually but probably should. That said it will be on my back at all times. We will have two porters. One will go off ahead with our clothes and sleeping stuff and one will be with us for...... Well I actually don't know what but my girlfriend seems to think it's a good idea. </p>

<p>I am completely interested in the mechanics behind it. And slowly but surely it is all sinking in. Again a need a few reads to make the knowledge innate but I'm getting.</p>

<p>I wont print these posts off but they are now safe and sound on my Kindle and iPad for future reference. Say whilst in a freezing cold tea-house somewhere in the mountains of Nepal (current bird flu crisis permitting).</p>

<p>Once again thank you for taking the time, your posts have been most insightful.</p>

<p>Much appreciated,<br>

Adam</p>

<p>Hi Andrew,</p>

<p>Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed post. I have read about this kind of thing in a previous post and after a few reads I am starting to understand the mechanics behind it a bit better. No doubt due to your clear explanation.</p>

<p>I am aware that an f-stop is a ratio but are you saying it is a direct ratio between the aperture of a lens and its focal length? If that is the case then an aperture of f5.6 would vary in size between lenses. Or have I misunderstood you and f5.6 is always a fixed dimension no matter the focal length of the lens? I actually cant quite believe I am asking this as I type this. It seems like it such basic knowledge but clearly something I still don't quite know.</p>

<p>I also presume using the long end of the 70-300 on a mountain some way off with stars in the background would produce the same flattened perspective as discussed earlier and possibly make the stars look even closer, enveloping. </p>

<p>I will keep you posted on how the Benro does. I was tempted to get the Gitzo model but prices were really beginning to creep up and I had to keep myself in check. </p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Adam</p>

<p>Great shots! Thanks Michael.</p>

<p>Agreed, less is more. I just bought the Benro carbon fiber MeFoto. I know there are later models out now but I liked the design of this model better. GBP 200 on eBay. Will be getting the 35mm an SB700 Speedlight and I think I'm good to go. </p>

Hi Farooq,

As you can imagine I'm pretty excited about the trip and being the person I am, buying new camera gear specifically for

the trip only adds to that excitement. Though I am constantly bringing myself back down to earth and trying to install a bit

of reality into my purchasing needs. With that in mind I think you're quite right in that my lenses are probably good for

90% of my needs. After all I conducted a similar amount of research before buying them in the first place.

That said, I really do see value in a light and portable tripod over my quite heavy (yet sturdy) Manfrotto as well as a fast,

sharp and portable 35mm prime.

I will be trekking the entire time on foot. I will need to carry everything with me but will have the help of porters/ Sherpas.

Each porter carries up to 20kh with them and I anticipate to carry all of my (and probably my girlfriend's who has an

aversion to carry anything larger then an iPhone) camera gear. I am looking at the Lowepro Trekker 300/400, the F-stop

Loka, Dakine Quest 28L and the Tamrac Expedition X7. So far the Lowepro and the F-stop are winning. .

Thanks for your advice,

Adam

<blockquote>

<p>The telephoto is worth taking just for the wonderful compression of perspective you can achieve - the mountains can be made to look very close.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Thanks Chris, this is a technique I had forgotten. It's easy to get caught up in trying to capture the "whole" sometimes when a shot like the one you posted above can better capture the moment. <br>

<br>

Thank you also Kent, I agree and know what you mean. I have posted in the past and got a huge variety of POV on a given subject. I think I've been pretty lucky in this particular post as there seems to be quite a consensus on what's needed. Not too much variation to cut through. Thanks entirely to logical posts from people that have done or continually do exactly what I am about to. great advice all round. As is your systemic approach and when I apply it to what I have and are looking to get I think it stands up quite well. A super wide 11-16 for night, low-light and wide landscapes (this could travel with the porters). My 16-85 as a general purpose that I presume will be on my camera 80% of the time. I then have my 70-300 for the compression shots mentioned by Chris as well as for wildlife at a distance and to experiment with at night. Then there is the super compact, lightweight, cheap and fast 35mm for interior low light shots. I may not use it all that much but its weight and size earns it a place in the bag I believe. Then there is the question of the flash. I am still on the fence on this one. I am currently looking at the SB700 but haven't properly explored the Metz options mentioned earlier. The tripod. I have pretty much abandoned the idea of bringing my heavy Manfotto in favour of a more collapsible, portable version. Again I need to look into the options here. Then lastly the bag.... The Lowepro Rover, Vertex and Trekker seem good options as does the Crumpler Karachi Outbound but once again I need to do more research.<br>

Adam </p>

Amazing. Thank you Joseph! The Sony NEX cameras are currently my absolute favourite point and shoot/ DSLR. I

bought two of my friends the Sony NEX 3 when it first came out (it's been three years now and nobody has got me one

back) and often borrow them for lightweight trips abroad. I was literally in the process of checking out travel tripods when

you replied and now have an extra tab open.

Wow, well said and quite right I expect. Whilst I have done a few treks in the past this is the first circuit I will have done

properly so experience in minimal. Yes I will be using porters and due to the cold I expect to be wearing most of the gear

you mention above but that depends on the circuit we choose.

My girlfriend and I will have our day stuff and our camera gear to carry between us. I, of course, have agreed to carry the

heaviest pack (like the gentleman I am) and we plan to do exactly as you mention on a few weekend trial runs before

hand up some mountains in Oman

You obviously speak from experience, do you have any suggestions for the type of pack I may be after. My back is a bit

of a pain but its not the end of the world. I go kickboxing twice a week and gym everyday so I'm not a stranger to

exercise..

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>I recently posted this question about which wide angle lenses and flashes to pair with my D7000 whilst spending 2 weeks trekking (mid winder, very cold but very clear) in and around the Himalayas. </p>

<p><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00byr2?start=10">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00byr2?start=10</a></p>

<p>Following this I am after suggestions on good backpacks to wear on such a trek to hold both my camera gear and hopefully some other stuff as well. In terms of camera gear I will most probably be carrying:<br>

- D7000 (probably around my neck with one of the lenses on).<br>

- My Niikor 16-85, 70-300, 35mm as well as a Tokina 11-16 with a bunch of filters.<br>

- A SB700 Speedlight<br>

- A Lomo LCA+ and a Lomo Belair with a bunch of films in both 35mm and 120mm format<br>

- Some spare batteries and chargers <br>

- Either a Manfrotto or Getz Traveller tripod<br>

- Walking sticks that may double as monopods.</p>

<p>In addition to the above I am sure my girlfriend will try and bung a bunch or her camera gear in there too but let's not consider that for the moment. But it would be handy to get some space for water and snacks for the day too but then again she could always be carrying that so its no big deal. </p>

<p>One thing that is critical for me is that as I have a bit of a bad back a waist strap to take the weight of the pack is essential. I have also been reading that some of these bags have suspension features as well which sound good. Anything to take the weight directly off of my back. </p>

<p>In short I am looking for as compact bag as possible that will fit this gear in snugly and take the weight off my back, any other storage is considered a bonus but I would certainly like to truss poles and tripod to the outside. And if anyone knows of good walking poles that can double as monopods, please let me know.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

Adam </p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses. They have proven invaluable and I think there seems to be a lot of agreement on many of the points and subsequently a clear route forward for me. <br>

Starting with Joseph's suggestion </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Nikon 35mm f 1.8 DX prime has excellent image quality and is light weight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I will certainly be picking up one of these lenses as they seem great value at only $240.<br>

Andrew, I wonder if you could expand on this comment you made?<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Or, as Joseph suggests, you could go for real speed and get a 35mm f/1.8 - or a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S or 85mm f/1.8 AF-S (the last of which would show up stars better than anything but possibly the 70-300mm, and be better wide open). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>How would you suggest using the 70-300mm in astro photography. I read in one of my last question posts about using zooms like this to capture greater star detail. <br>

<br>

Kent, your advice here is super relevant and a real help. The Sony RX is a great camera and certainly something I would love to add to my "wish list". As I mentioned I will be travelling with my girlfriend and I just convinced only two days ago that she should get the D5200 for exactly the reasons you mentioned. So between that and the D7000, combined with the lenses I have and will be purchasing, we should be in pretty good shape. With the almost unanimous approval I will also certainly be getting the Tokina 11-16. Though I will certainly be looking into Peter's suggestion </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the new 12-28 is more practical (but maybe not available yet)<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does anyone have any more info on this lens, when it might be released and what we are looking at in terms of speed? <br>

<br>

Kent, another couple of points you mentioned were the flashlight method, which sounds really interesting and something I can experiment with before hand, as well as the Getz Traveller tripod. I was planning to make my rather heavy and bulky Manfrotto (not sure which series). But after your comments I may well get one of these instead.<br>

<br>

When it comes to the flash. I have to think beyond the trekking, which I will be doing at least once a year but presume I will want added capabilities in other situations as well as in the future. So size and weight are not my only considerations here. I have very little working knowledge of flash photography but the point being to get one now and take the interim three months before the trip to learn the basics.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you're OK with the size of a SB600, you'll be OK with the size of a SB700 - they're about equal weight, size. <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So the SB700 it is. </p>

Hi Andrew, firstly I was actually refering to the 14mm prime as I ruled out the HUGE FX wide zoom. My next camera will

certainly be a full frame so it's a possibility to start a sensible FX collection where logical. Though I understand this lens

also doesn't take filters but is about $500 cheaper and 1/3 light/ smaller. Just seemed like a possibility.

A fisheye is probably not the aesthetic I'm after as I'm not keen on the distortion. The same may be said for the ultra, ultra

wide Sigma. That said do you know anything of the quality of this lens as well as things like coma on stars etc? This

would b a factor to me. I guess I'm after a high IQ, fast wide lens. I presume I will be handholding in some low light

scenarios so speed is probably important. Again the Toking 11-16 seems like a good bet still.

Regarding flashes I did read up on the SB600. Ken Rockwell seems to rave about it. The SB 700 is a possibility I'm just

worried about the size. I guess a trip to the mall to get hands on is in order. Do you think th SB 300 is just too basic? As

far as I can tell you don't have any control over the amount of light whatsoever.

Yep, hiring a lens seems to be pricy here in Dubai so ill be sticking with my 70-300. I bought this trip as a bday present to

my girlfriend so need to keep my spending in check : )

I have a few facets to my question so I will try to keep it as brief and concise as possible.

In December I will be heading off to the Himalayas to do some long treks and a lot of photography. I currently have a D7000 with a 16-85

and the 70-300. I will be shooting wildlife, landscapes (both day and night) as well as low-light monasteries and lots of timelapse and

astrolapses. I have been looking to expand my lens collection with a fast wide zoom or prime. I recently posted this http://www.photo.net/nikon-

camera-forum/00bpgX?start=10 question and got some very detailed responses but nothing that gave me th answer. I have been looking

at the Tokina 11-16, Nikkor 10-24, and the Nikkor 14mm f2.8. I would love to hear people thoughts and suggestions based on what I have

and my low light requirements.

I am also in the market for a flash. As I will be carrying all this stuff I need to balance what I need for the trip with what I want long term. I

do not mind spending on the right lens or flash or even carrying it around if it will last me long term. Currently nothing seems to sit

between the SB300 and the SB 700 in the flas range.

I also plan to post another question on camera backpack/ hiking bags.

Thanks in advance,

Adam

<p>Hi Andrew,<br>

Sorry for the very late response but I just wanted to let you know that I read, re-read and then read again you message above. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to give such an eloquent explanation (even with a bit of your own jargon thrown in) to my question.<br>

The information was invaluable and I very much appreciate it. <br>

Thanks again,<br>

Adam</p>

<p>I actually have already done a bunch of timelapses with my D7000 and 16-85. Here are two, obviously not astrolapses but illustrate changing from bright to low light. I used After Effects and GbDeflicker to compose and <em>attempt</em> and remove flicker.</p>

<p>I will upload the astrolapses I have done in both Patagonia and Oman. Probably the two safest places in the world where you only need look over your shoulder for Pumas or Arabian Leopards.</p>

<p>Both in Dubai<br>

<a href="https://vimeo.com/56518772">https://vimeo.com/56518772</a><br>

<a href="https://vimeo.com/54800610">https://vimeo.com/54800610</a></p>

<p>Chris, Andrew</p>

<p>I should probably point out that star trails are at the bottom of my list of uses for a possible new lens. I agree that if I were after that alone the lenses I already have would probably suffice.</p>

<p>I am specifically after time-lapses of the the night sky capturing the movement of the stars (Earth) whilst including some native scenery that unquestionably places you within a given location. Baobab trees, glacier, mountain, ice etc in the foreground. As raised earlier this will also be aided by gentle lighting of the said foreground. <br>

Andrew, some really good and new points to me here. Could you please explain what you mean by "absolute aperture"? Is this a max aperture? So an interesting approach would be to use the long end of the 70-300 capturing a scene off in the distance. I presume this would give some exaggerated or flattened perspective to the shots too. <br>

I guess I am looking for guidance on which lens work best with the D7000, which would be suited best for my purpose and then some finer points on coma etc. Though a lot of useful info has already been laid out and much appreciated.</p>