markus_arike

<I>1/500 shutter speed with VR, is there something Im missing here?</I>

 

<BR><BR>

Shooting in Aperture Priority on a monopod, what am I supposed to do, reach down and turn VR off every time my shutter speed up past 1/200 second? Am I miss something?

Chuck,

Thanks alot for the reply. Do you think that the sound I described is that of a normally functioning VR lens? I bought it from B&H and I just want to make sure everything is OK before the 7 day exchange period is up. Thanks again for yours and the others comments.

I just purchased the Nikon 70-200 VR to use on my D70. I am impressed

with everything about the lens - sharpness, bokeh, AF speed, handling,

etc. However, when using the lens on a monopod with VR on,

occasionally I hear a fairly loud "tic" sound. Not a soft "tic,tic,

tic" as my old Canon 28-135 IS made, but a single "tic" from the VR

lens, which is considerably louder than the IS function.

<BR><BR>

Is this normal? Could any other users of the Nikkor 70-200 VR

describe the sound of Vibration Reduction in Normal Mode? Just want

to make sure that it is functioning properly.

<BR><BR>

Thanks in advance,

Markus Arike<div></div>

<I>Is the suggestion of renting a D2H workable?</I>

<BR><BR>

Yes, David, it is. I will ask my wife, who is Greek, to call around Athens photo shops to find out pricing and availability. Great idea, thanks alot.

<BR><BR>

<I>Nikon really needs to make a photographer?s DSLR priced between the D70 and D2H.</I>

<BR><BR>I agree 100%. Something with the build quality and AF speed of the F100, perhaps with a nice bright viewfinder and an option for adding a motordrive would make perfect sense for those wanting a lower cost/lighter weight body. It's amazing to me that a used D1X in "9" is still around 2,500 USD at B&H.

<BR><BR>

Thanks again David and others for the suggestions.

<I>I shoot sports and ... I'm shooting a d70 and eithor a 80-400 vr...

 

What sport do you shoot -- chess??</I> <BR><BR>

 

I don't find these type of comments helpful at all. Not everyone, myself included has a budget for a D2H and an AFS 300 2.8. I guess I'll just have to make due with the 70-200 VR on a D70, even for sports. Would I like a top of the line pro body? Of course. Does it mean good sports images cannot be made with anything else? No.

<BR><BR> I had the same question today as the original poster, as I'm using a D70 with 300 f/4 and SB-800. I was shooting a woodpecker at fairly close range, and using i-TTL didn't seem to provide enough fill light. Since it relates to Tony's post, what would be the best way to handle telephoto flash especially with the 70-200 at 200? I think Tony's is a very good question. Thanks

<I>I shoot sports and ... I'm shooting a d70 and eithor a 80-400 vr...

 

What sport do you shoot -- chess??</I> <BR><BR>

 

I don't find these type of comments helpful at all. Not everyone, myself included has a budget for a D2H and an AFS 300 2.8. I guess I'll just have to make due with the 70-200 VR on a D70, even for sports. Would I like a top of the line pro body? Of course. Does it mean good sports images cannot be made with anything else? No.

<BR><BR> I had the same question today as the original poster, as I'm using a D70 with 300 f/4 and SB-800. I was shooting a woodpecker at fairly close range, and using i-TTL didn't seem to provide enough fill light. Since it relates to Tony's post, what would be the best way to handle telephoto flash especially with the 70-200 at 200. I think Tony's is a very good question. Thanks

Thanks very much Steve, as I was starting to get a bit nervous about my kit after the comments here. I expected the D2H suggestions and I could probably buy one if I didn't have to buy the 70-200 VR next week. The AFS 70-200 2.8 VR is one piece of gear that I don't think I could do without. That lens has good AF speed and coupled with the D70, which will shoot 40 jpgs at 3fps until the buffer is full, I should be OK. <BR><BR>

As far as whether or not the D70 is up to the task, I believe it is, especially for more general coverage. After all the newspaper hired me on the basis of some sports images I made with D70 and AF 300 f4 ED. <BR><BR>

 

 

I noticed at the NBA finals that many photographers are using a 70-200 lens (must be white versions of the Nikkor 70-200 VR, of course) and some use even shorter lenses. And I saw some pro skating images on Pbase made with a 70-200 and D2H that were outstanding. So not all sports require 300 & 400 2.8 or larger lenses. I'm hoping that my press pass will get me as close as I need to be. Thanks again.

The Summer Olympics is a little over two weeks. While both the N80 & the D70 are not as durable as an F5 or D2H, I suspect that the would "stand up" to sustained use if that means 19 days.

Anyway, I posted this because it is my first big photographic opportunity and I want to make sure I have all the bases covered in the equipment department.

 

<BR><BR>As far as "crossing any CAM-900 AF module camera off of my list, unfortunately I can't afford to do that, and I have close to $5000 in gear. But I understand and appreciate the sentiment. I was hoping to get more feedback, but I guess I didn't ask the right type of question. Thanks to all that responded.

I only mentioned the film body for sake of completeness, as I will only bring it along for emergencies. As far as getting another D70, I guess it is a remote possibility. I will be doing general coverage, thank goodness, where the 70-200 VR will be a definite. My main issue were the 1.4 TC against the kind if slow focus speed of the AF 300 f/4 ED, which is a lens that has worked fairly we'll for things like highschool soccer. <BR><BR>

No, I don't think film will be convenient in terms of workflow, as I will be emailing images to the newspaper. Again, they have made it clear to me that they are not a sports newspaper. They just want images of the Opening Ceremonies, and for me to follow any successes by local American atheletes. I hope this clarifies my post a bit. Thanks again as I really need as much feedback on this one as possible.

There is a very good chance that I'll be doing some work at the Athens

2004 Olympics for a small newspaper. I did a search but didn't find

specific answers to my questions. I know that most here will suggest

I bring 2 D2H's w/ AFS 300 2.8 but that's not in my budget, as the pay

will probably not equal to that investment. <BR><BR>

Anyway, the Nikon equipment that I have is as follows: Nikon D70 and

N80 bodies, AF 300 f4 ED, AFS 18-70 3.5-4.5, 60mm Micro, SB-800

speedlight with a Gitzo tripod. I will for certain add the 70-200 VR

and a monopod. My question is since the AF 300 f4 ED has slow AF, do

the members of this forum think I should trade it for a Nikon 1.4

teleconverter to match the 70-200 VR? Or do I sell the 300 f4 and 60

mm Micro to get the Nikkor AFS 300 f/4 to use along with the 70-200

VR? Also are there any other lenses (i.e. 50 1.8, 80-400 VR) or

equipment that I might consider. I happen to favor teleconverter

option, but am looking to the more experienced sport/event

photographers for their opinions. I'm wondering if the older AF 300

f4 ED will be useful at all, as it is slow to focus and takes a

different TC than the 70-200 VR. Thanks to all in advance for

assistance with this question.

I vote for the AFS 12- 24mm f/4.0 DX. Awesome lens.

I think you are on the right track with the Gitzo 3 series, 1340. I have the 1320 which has a centerpost and it's great. Unless you are using really light gear, or unless you're looking to hike a long way in the field, I don't think you'll be happy with a tripod <I>less </I> sturdy than your Manfrotto 3221.<BR><BR>

I considered the 1340, but decided that I centerpost can be useful. Unless you have an L bracket, with a ballhead when you flop the head to vertical, your tripod gets shorter by a couple of inches. With the centerpost, you can add the height back by raising it an inch or two.

<BR><BR>At 7.3 lbs (3.31 kg) 1320 weighs two pounds more than my Bogen 3021 but it is taller, a clear advantage for someone over 5'9". It's obviously a bit more sturdy than the 3021 as I guess it should be. I toyed with the idea of the Explorer. But the leg locks were a bit loud. When I looked at them, it seemed the CF Explorers were not only nicer looking, but probably more user friendly than the aluminum Explorer. Too bad they are so pricey. Good luck.

I want to get a Gitzo tripod. I want a sturdy tripod that will be

used for both outdoor photography and in a studio setting. I am

stuck between a Series 2 1224 or a series 3 1320 (or 1340).

Equipment � a Nikon D70 with lenses up to Nikon AFS 70-200 2.8 VR

w/1.4 TC. The 1224 Reporter Series 2, weighing a little over 5 lbs.

(5.3). Or the 1320 Studex Series 3 at 7.3 lbs.

<BR><BR> Clearly the 1320 the sturdier of the two. But is it overkill

for my gear? Is the 1224 better for the equipment I have? Is it

significantly more solid than a Bogen 3021? Or is the Studex 1320 (or

1340 without center column) a substantially more solid and user-

friendly tripod?

<BR><BR>I searched the archives for the 1224. I found a few threads,

but the 1227 CF seems to dominate in terms hits in a google search of

the archives. Why is that? Are the smaller 12xx Carbon Fiber models

a photo club fad, are they better for a hiking situation or are they

really more rigid, user friendly tripods? The 1227 CF � is the higher

price of CF getting me a "lighter sturdier" tripod or is it on the

light side for my needs? In John Shaw�s book �Nature Photographer�s

Field Guide� he says the 1227/1228 Carbon Fiber are about the only

Gitzo tripods that he <I>does not</I> recommend. But I do see a lot

of users of the 12xx series Carbon Fiber models on these forums. I�d

like to hear any ideas/user experience. <BR><BR>

<BR<BR>Ballhead - I will be looking at the Linhof Profi II with RRS

QR, an Acratech Ultimate Ballhead, or possibly a Gitzo 1377 ballhead

with RRS Arca Swiss QR. I�ve used an Arca Swiss B1 in the past. Do

any of the ballheads that I've mentioned have the smooth ball

movements of the B1? Do they have ergonomic touches like the geared

main locking knob of the B1? Do the Linhof and Acratech lock down as

tightly as the Arca Swiss? Are there resonable alternatives to the

B1? The BH-1 comes to mind. Probably a joy to use. <BR><BR>It�s not

always easy to try the legs/ballhead combo in the store. Any

comments/suggestions are, as always, greatly appreciated.

Seems like everyone chose to ignore Mikkel's comment. <BR><BR>Well I'll say it again. I have the D70 users manual and pg.201 clearly states under "Viewfinder" - "Optical Fixed Pentaprism".

As for the release date, your guess is as good as mine. If you do a search at dpreview's Nikon SLR Forum you'll get more speculation, i.e May or June. Who knows for sure? Another one of the new Nikon products that has Nikon users patiently waitng (D70, 17-55 2.8 DX). <BR><BR>

As far as features the SB800 is Nikon's flagship and it is the more powerful of the two. Both flashes work very well with the new D70 providing i-TTL Flash Metering. The newer SB600 has faster recycling time. While the SB800 can be used as a Master to wirelessly control other SB800/SB600's, the SB600 can only act as a slave in the same type of wireless setup, part of Nikon's Creative Lighting. You can find a table of the SB800/SB600 functions <a href="http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/firstlook/nikon/d70/nikon_D70_EN09.html">here</a>. Hope this helps.

I agree with Shun that $1000 is a lot for a wide-angle zoom with a constant F/4. In comparison, Canon�s very good 17-40 f/4 L is $700, which is more reasonable for a slow wide-angle zoom. But the Canon lens won�t act as a wide-angle lens on a DSLR. And the Nikon, unfortunately, won�t work well on a full frame film camera. For that reason, I might pass on it for now as it is too specialized to justify the cost. I'd like all of my lenses to work on all of my bodies, if possible.

<BR><BR>Since I like to shoot wildlife, landscapes, sunrises, etc. I believe the AFS 70-200 2.8 G ED IF VR is more useful to me. And it is worth the $1400 price tag, as on the D70 with it�s 1.5 crop factor, it will act as a 100-300 2.8 telezoom with Vibration Reduction. One question about the zoom�s VR: does it have a panning mode similar to the Canon 70-200 IS? And since this is my first DSLR, do I need to get a Compact Flash Card Reader? Or is a CF card reader simply a faster method of transferring images? Thanks in advance for you advice.

I want to thank you all for your comments so far. As far as the AFS 12-24 f/4 G ED, I have been considering this lens. I have read good things about it, one particularly great review on <a href=" http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS12-24DX_rev00.html ">Bjorn Rorslett�s </a>site. I have two problems with the wide-angle zoom. Firstly, it is expensive for a lens that will only work on a DSLR. Secondly, if Nikon ever goes to a full frame sensor DSLR, this lens will essentially be useless. I would like to have lenses that function on both film and digital SLR's. The AFS 12-24 f/4 G ED is one of the best wide-angle options on a DSLR, but it is very specialized. Because it is so specialized, I see it as a bit expensive. What do you all think?

I just made the switch from Canon to Nikon. After months of

research, reading reviews, I decided to abandon Canon�s wonderful

system of lenses and accessories and move over to Nikon�s fantastic

system. I waited for Canon to introduce a new DSLR at PMA, but

nothing. So today I ordered a D70 with the AFS 18-70 3.5-4.5 DX

zoom. My question is this: As a Canon shooter it was always my

dream to own a 70-200 2.8 L zoom. So I�ve decided to purchase

Nikon�s new AFS 70-200 2.8 VR zoom to go along with the D70 and 18-70

zoom, and to build my kit around those two lenses.<BR><BR>Since I

have about $2000 USD remaining to get lenses and accessories (perhaps

a film body) to go with the D70, I want to know the best way to use

that money. <BR><BR>

Instead of the AFS 70-200 2.8 VR zoom, do you think that I would be

happy with Nikon�s 80-200 2.8ED ($779 USD) instead of the newer, by

all accounts, sharper 70-200 VR? How does the 80-200 ED perform with

TC�s? How loud is the AF motor? <BR><BR> I like to shoot nature,

portraits, travel, and maybe some sports. My wife and I live in

Athens, which is hosting the Olympics this summer, and if they�ll let

me, I�d like to take some photos. Plus I�m planning to travel around

Greece and the Greek Islands to shoot landscapes. I am also

interested in portraiture, and would like to start photographing

children, mom�s & dad�s, etc. So, I want to get the sharpest lenses

possible and I would like to, if possible, stick to AFS lenses as one

of the things I like about Canon is their USM lenses. I like the AF

speed, but also that they are quiet. I bought a Tamron lens recently

and it�s a good lens, but it has that coffee-grinder sound when it

focuses. I�d like to avoid that in future purchases. Anyway, I

could also purchase an F100 to compliment the D70 if I get the 80-

200ED instead of the 70-200. I definitely will buy a film body no

matter what, but don�t know yet how much I�ll use it. If I find

myself always reaching for the D70, then maybe I�ll get an N80

instead of an F100 and get better glass, speedlights, a Gitzo 1340

instead of a new Bogen 3021. <BR><BR> Anyway, I�d mainly like to know

from the Nikon shooter�s in this forum, how the 80-200 2.8 ED

performs in comparison to the newer 70-200 VR. (?) Also what is the

best portrait lens? Will I be OK with the 85 1.8, or 50 1.4 on the

D70, or is the 105 f2 DC a lens that is worth stretching my budget

for? Thank You and sorry for the length of my post but as a Nikon

convert I have hundreds of questions.

Another vote for the Mac. My wife and I have a iMac Flat Panel on which we run OSX Jaguar and it does everything we need it to do. There is nothing like viewing an image on a TFT monitor, and I disagree that an iMac is can't be upgraded as it takes 1 Gig of RAM. We run Adobe CS with less than half of that much RAM with no problems. Of course, money no object the G5 Dual processor with a 21" Cinema Display or maybe La Cie monitor would be preferable, but how often is money not an object. The new 20" iMac is a fantastic machine, with enough firewire ports, and USB ports to make it a fantastic digital workstation. I've been working for the last five years in the Graphic Design industry, and there is a reason that all of our offices, from the DTP to the Photoshop Departments are using Macs. <BR><BR>I go over to my brothers house and use his PC running Windows XP. What a drag XP is, with balloons popping up in the taskbar every five seconds. No thanks.

The Tamron lens does not have Full Time Manual Focusing, which allows you to touch up the focus manually while in AF mode. This feature is primarily found in Canon USM and some Nikon AFS lenses. <BR><BR>As far as your dilemma, I have the Tamron lens now and I used to have the EF 28-135 IS. Both are fine lenses. I'd say the Tamron is a bit sharper, and does offer f2.8 if you need it. However, I hardly ever shoot there as the lens is not at it's best wide open. I wouldn't say soft, but I'm happier stopping down a bit. <BR><BR> If you don't need f2.8, and certainly on the Digital Rebel, you can boost the ISO, so wide aperature is not such a necessity, get the Canon. It is a fine lens - fast, quite AF, great range (49-216mm on your Rebel), IS, and it makes a wonderful walk around lens on the Elan 7e. You obviously bought Canon for a reason, so take advantage of IS and their marvelous optics.

Other than the slightly overenthusiastic tone of what some might view a �gushing� review of the D70, what exactly does Mr. Rockwell say that�s so objectionable to the members of this forum? He has the nerve to state that the D70 is in some ways superior to all sub $3000 DSLR�s and even has some better features and cleaner images than some $5000 DSLR�s. Not such a stretch, although I�ll grant it may be a bit premature to make these claims. Since Nikon and Canon�s 6- megapixel DSLR�s are the benchmark for other DSLR�s, and since the D70 uses the basically the same CCD as the D100, why is it so hard to fathom a superior body with outstanding image quality from Nikon? Basically all Mr. Rockwell says is that image quality, resolution, noise, from all Nikon and Canon DSLR�s �are within an invisible 20% of each other�. Sounds reasonable, doesn�t it?

<BR><BR>He goes on to talk about specific features, improvements in user interface, 1005 segment color metering, etc. He seems genuinely excited not only about the 1/500th of sec. flash sync, but the new iTTL mode, the use of the built in flash as a master to wirelessly control an off camera 600 or 800 series flash (very nice), FEC (one big gripe of EOS 300D users), and even manual control of built in flash. He evaluates the new AF-S18-70 3.5-4.5 DX lens, pointing out its strengths and weaknesses, i.e. sharpness, distortion.

<BR><BR> His review does read a bit like a commercial for the D70, but I for one can see why the new DSLR offering from Nikon is cause for excitement. It is the second DSLR under the magical $1000 price point and it appears to be not some scaled back model, but a full-feature DSLR that may eclipse many models at and <I>above</I> its� classification in terms of price/performance ratio. <BR><BR>Reading comments about the D70 over the past weeks since its announcement and now this latest criticism of Mr. Rockwell review, I get the impression some harbor a sub-conscious desire for the D70 to turn out to be a dog. It�s natural to be protective of your investment, i.e. D100, but the more quality bodies available from Nikon the better for everybody.

Which lens are you talking about? If you mean the AFS 18-70 3.5-4.5 DX lens that will be sold as a kit with the D70, then there is no film body that will be compatible with that lens. <BR><BR>

A bit of background as it relates to the posters question - even though I shoot Canon, I've been waiting to see if Canon would release a DSLR at PMA. Since they didn't, and as I am not a fan of the Digital Rebel (I would never buy a silver camera called "Rebel"), I will probably jump ship and buy a D70. I have been tormented by the choice of film bodies to go with the D70. I have narrowed it down to an F100 or a used F5. I think the F100 is a great body, built very well, spot meter, a bright finder, and quick autofocus. Only problem w/ F100 is lack of MLU. With my EOS 3, I use mirror lock-up quite a bit. Hence, my interest in an F5, a body that I've always dreamed about. <BR><BR>

I have also owned an N80 and except for its incompatibility with MF lenses, it is an excellent body. Light, quiet, grid lines in the finder, etc. <BR><BR>You mentioned an F4 - an F4 is an excellent choice since they can be found on the used market at very reasonable prices. However, if you want to use Nikon's VR lenses, the F4 is not a great choice as I don't think it works with VR function (The many Nikon experts in this Forum, please correct me if I am wrong). <BR><BR>Anyway, Doug, if you want a lens that will work on both your film body and DSLR, you might consider the AFS 24-85 instead of the 18-70 DX lens. Or if you don't absolutely need a zoom, you could get Nikon's excellent 50 f/1.4 for one body (will act as a portrait lens with D70's 1.5 crop factor) and a 35 f/2 for the other (a normal lens on the D70). Anyway, hope this helps and best of luck.

Since the poster did say �cheap� I�m guessing that the Canon options (the EF 400 5.6 L and 100-400 4.5-5.6L <I>without</I> the 2X TC), while fantastic, are not what he had in mind. But what do I know? <BR><BR>

A few more options for telephoto lenses on a budget are 1) a used Sigma 400 5.6 APO Macro (it looks to be discontinued as Adorama & B&H no longer list the lens) 2) a Sigma 300 f4 Macro (also discontinued but probably easy to find on eBay) 3) a Sigma 135-400 4.5-5.6 APO. Finally, probably the best, but also most expensive is Russ�s suggestion 4) a used Canon EF 300 f4 L with or without 1.4X TC or 5) a used EF 400 5.6 L with or without a 1.4X TC. <BR><BR>

The three Sigma lenses are considered pretty good and rated well on photozone.de. I haven�t used them so I can�t offer first hand evaluations. The 135-400 4.5-5.6 APO is available new as Adorama sells it for $519 USD. Of the two Canon options, what can I say, both lenses offer excellent optics. With the 300 f4 you get more speed and you have the option of adding a 1.4X TC for more reach. The EF 400 5.6 L (I bought one reconditioned from B&H for $800), for sports, depending on where you are on the field, may be a bit long. I don�t know. As a bird lens, it is primarily used for shooting bird in flight handheld. A great all-around telephoto. May be a touch short for songbirds, but good for larger, or tame birds. With a 1.4X TC you get a 560mm f/8 lens, that will only auto focus on the EOS 3 or 1V. Anyway, that�s about it. Good luck.

Peter, The 75-300 4.5-5.6 is supposedly one of the better xxx-300 telezooms around. For what it's worth, at the "Lens Performance Survey" at photozone.de the lens receives "very good" ratings both at the short end and most importantly, the long end (Many of the zooms in this range are known to be soft at 300mm). Much better performance than the 70-300 4-5.6 ED. The other nice thing about the 75-300 4.5-5.6 is that it has a tripod collar, which is a rarity for such telezooms these days.

<I>"Well not a bad picture, but lacking in optical quality"</I><BR><BR>I'm not sure what image Mr. Holstrom is looking at, but the image of the duck looks quite sharp, and altogether usable to my eyes. And it has nothing to do with the effect you get with a "diffuser". The detail in the feathers on the underside of the duck is evidence of this fact. <BR><BR>I think the primary loss in sharpness has to do not so much with the 2X TC, but with Jim's not using the tripod rig shown in the first image of the post. Even with high shutter speeds, handholding a 600/4 lens is not something that is going to give you optimal results on a consitant basis.<BR><BR>As far as the catchlight in the duck's eyes: it is very difficult to add a catchlight after the fact using an image editing program. They almost always look fake. A better solution is using fill flash with some kind of fresnel device, such as a Better Beamer. Keep up the good work.