paul_frank

I am aware of most, if not all, of the previous threads on this area,

but none seem to describe what areas are best/accessible in "winter"

ie now. I will be going up for three days this next week, and have

never been to the area.

 

-I plan to try Castle Crags, and perhaps Lassen Volcanic. How

accessible is Lassen by car and foot only this time of year?

 

-Where are there good spots to work in Mt Shasta that are accessible now?

 

-What about Lava Beds and the Natl Wildlife refuges? Worth the extra

miles given that Redding is essentially my base for 2+ days? Or

should I focus on opportunites closer?

 

Thanks for your help, trying to max out the little time I have.

i've had mine for 2 years + and I don't baby it. I'm on my second GG but the camera itself has held up very well. I say don't worry about what you might have heard.

dont get the "pro" version of your legs unless you ABSOLUTELY need the ability to put the center column on its side. I recommend not getting that feature at all, even if you were to try to use it because it is not very stable in that configuration. The other 99% percent of the time, the piece on the legs which give you that ability only serves to weaken the whole setup so is pointless in my opinion. if you go to a store, set up the legs, and try to wiggle the center column from it's bottom end and you'll see exactly what I mean. you're much better off with the non-"pro" version in my opinion. and do yourself a favor - never buy a tripod and head in a month you are "on a budget." you'll kick yourself for wasting the money on inferior equipment down the line. (i'm not saying the 3021 is inferior, it's fine for your current uses).

thanks, like i said i'm interested in the optics, I understand the metering implications of the different TCs already. Comparisons are what I'm interested in, as I know how it works with the 301. and saying it "doesn't work too well" is basically ignorance.

 

Thanks again.

This question has come up a couple times in the forums, but it never

seems to be sufficiently answered for me.

 

Anyone out there using TC20e (or TC14e for that matter) on AIS lenses?

I'm already familiar with the modification necessary for mounting the

TCs in the first place, my main concern is the optical quality. Can

anyone verify if it is similar to the 301/14b TCs? Specifically, I've

got the 400/3.5 and want to use a TC20e with it as long as the results

are comparible to that with the 301.

 

Thanks for any insight.

yes.

 

If you can afford any of the ballheads you mention, and you can afford a long lens, and a 'heavy' (i assume professional) body, then you sure as hell can afford a gitzo. a 1340 will hold most things you would want those ballheads for, and a 1410 would hold even more, and both are cheaper than any of those ballheads. Almost nothing bogen makes will compare to a rock solid gitzo with a long lens and a quality ballhead.

 

some may disagree, but that's my experience, having used the kirk with all the legsets mentioned.

maybe it's just an opinion, but I'd steer clear of the 'pro' line of the bogens. I have a 3021 'pro' i bought years back and found that the part that allows the center column to go horiz only serves to weaken the whole setup with the column in vertical (or horiz for that matter). Unless you think you will really need that feature (i thought I would use it, but never did) I'd skip it. or, save your money a while longer - i'm one who thinks Gitzo's are worth every penny they cost!

 

good luck.

You will never get the results you seek with any print film unless it is properly printed. Keep that in mind. I've tried just about all those that are mentioned here, and for what you want, my opinion is that the konica impresa, when properly printed, is the best combo of fine grain and saturation you can get in c-41. It is difficult to print well, compared to other negative films. I print it myself in a trad darkroom. and it took a long time to really get a handle of how it behaves. It works well on fuji crystal archive, never tried it on anything else. it tends to need a bit more red than other films.

I should add that there are federal laws about harassing marine mammals, and you should take extreme care to avoid doing so. Approaching close enough to a marine mammal, especially an otter, such that it scares them off is illegal. So if an otter starts picking up its head and checking you out, you should go no further.

If you want highest percentage, the Elkhorn safaris are not a bad call. I've never done one, but I've seen them and the bigger the boat, the less shaking due to waves you will encounter. on the sarafi boat you could set up a tripod. If you do that get a 600+TCs cause you'll want every mm you can get.

 

I shoot them fairly often down in Montery and there abouts from both land and a canoe/kayak. canoe/kayak is the best option when the water is calm. when it's rough, you might be better off shooting from land but will need all the length you can get your hands on. A good setup from a kayak is handholding a 300/4 with a 1.4 TC, which netted me the attached photograph, which still required some cropping. They will not let you get closer than about 30-40 feet, depending on their temperment. Some will bolt when you get within 60 feet. Some will pay no attention and go on about their business or even approach somewhat. It takes a ton of patience to get good photographs of wild otters, so be prepared and know that one weekend is not enough unless you get really lucky. I go several times a year, and more often then not come back with nothing.

 

Good luck!<div></div>

certain pages here at photo.net always seem to "hang" on me. My

browser will indicate "transferring data from a.tribalfusion.com" or

some other permutation of the tribalfusion domain and just stall.

 

What's going on?

>>I can't see how the 200-400 VR would be in the $3500 range. The Canon 100- 400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS costs $1400, and has the AF-S and VR equivalents. Sure, it is one half to a stop slower, but it also has longer range, and I can't see how Nikon would be able to introduce their competing product for more than $2000 or so.

 

maybe you need glasses. ever noticed that a 300/4 afs lens is ~$1100 while a 300/2.8 afs is ~$4400? 1 stop costs alot at that focal lentgth range.

perhaps sports and wildlife photographers will find a need for a long (especially on smaller digi sensors) relatively fast lens that enables them to change their focal lenth so that they do not have to move towards or away from their subject. nikon used to have a mf version of this lens if i'm correct that was much coveted and near impossible to find these days.

 

I'd be first in line for this lens if i could afford it. it will most likely be quite expensive. $3500+?

use flash, preferably with a flash extender to extend it's range.

fwiw, I have a rodenstock grandagon n 90/6.8 and have dificulty with the shen hoa's screen at dusk/dawn. i would think that I personally would not be able to use a 90/8 at those times, but that's just me. you'll have to try it.

if you're shooting negative film it seems to me there should be no need for a cc filter. Dial in cc when printing or digitally if you scan. simple as that.

I print it in a conventional darkroom and I simply start with less cyan than when printing other films. I never use filters. never been a problem for me.

I think it depends what you're shooting. I shoot mostly slow moving mammals, so the 400/3.5 is ideal for me. I didn't have a fortune to spend, and AF was not a huge priority. If you intend to shoot fast moving things, need of AF might sway you a different direction. Let me tell you panning with birds in flight is not an easy task with this lens.

 

I think that a 3rd party lens can do very well for you. Some examples are very good. But I believe that part of the reason nikons cost more is not just brand name, but quality control. It costs alot to get consistancy in a product like this and 3rd party lenses will not be as consistantly good from lens to lens as will nikons.

 

Make sure you budget for tripod/head if you don't already have one. This lenses you are proposing to get will REQUIRE a ~800+ tripod/head investment(new).

it all depends what you are putting on top of it. duh. why don't you tell us what you intend to mount on it and then you can get a useful answer.

If you are printing yourself in a color darkroom, for this sort of thing it is near impossible to beat konica impresa. At least that is my opinion; I shoot and print color negatives and have tried everything fuji has to offer but konica beats them all for fine grain and saturation. This film gets mangled by 1 hour labs but is capable of amazing results when printed by hand by a knowledgeable printer. It is capable from 35mm of producing remarkably good 16x20s, although a very good negative is needed. I shoot it mainly in 6x7 and it can be stunning for landscapes. It does well in both soft and hard light.

 

I would not recommend it for portraits. If you anticipate including people in your shots, carry another film as well.

 

oh yeah - I print it on Crystal Archive type CDII, although it's also nice on type P for higher contrast images.

i wonder why no mention (unless i'm missing something) has been made of what you are supporting. A BH-1 (what I use) is total overkill for anything that you can reasonably support on a 3021 (which I have extensively used). I support a fast 400mm with it(the bh-1, not the 3021). Unless you are supporting a fast 300 or longer, you don't really need a bh-1 (although if you expect to get bigger glass and a bigger tripod, then you should have all the head you need for the future). If kirk is what you want, a bh-3 is more cost effective and will support up to a 300/2.8, which in my opinion is too much weight for a 3021 anyway.

that's a tough one. How about from Nikon?

In a few weeks I will be driving through Grand Staircase Escalante on

the Cottonwood Road. I will have roughly 30 hours all told on the

road to spare, and since I've never been there, am seeking guidance.

I'd like to find a good spot to camp where I will have nearby

sunrise/sunset opportunities. I would appreciate any info from anyone

who's done it. I am fully aware of the requisite vehicle and

emergency needs, as well as other places in Utah to shoot, so I'd

appreciate a discussion limited to photography along that stretch

only. thanks!

yikes. i really struck a nerve. what I have noticed is that I intended to put "manual" in there, but forgot to. As in, nikon manual gear (now) could be compatible with future nikon digital/auto equipment in the future. I was not suggesting you buy a nikon digital outfit. for the same price as a canon fd outfit, you could get a nikon manual outfit and those lenses could probably be used in the future on futur nikon digi/autofocus bodies. sorry for trying to help, I didn't intend my post the way you read it.

 

i wouldn't subscribe to this forum if i didn't consider fd equip to be good. I just don't think that it is a good system to START FROM SCRATCH WITH in this day and age. I doubt canon fd equip will be worth half it's present value on the used market in 5 years. the future may prove me wrong.

 

>> I'm guessing that in five to six years, when I'm on the other side and ready to start building up a camera system again that I'll be looking at DSLRs.

 

Above is the part of your post that I was responding to, for what it's worth. Current nikon manual lenses might make that 5-6 year transition easier, that's all I was saying.

 

good luck.

maybe this isn't the answer you want, but what about this idea:

 

what are you going to do in 3-5 years when your FD kit is not compatible with anything modern and there is little to no demand for old outdated manual 35mm equipment? If you ever decide to rejoin the autofocus/digital movement, what will you do with your gear that is not compatible with anything auto or digital? As long as you are starting from scratch, why not invest in (gasp) nikon gear that at least can be potentially mounted on future digtal/auto nikon bodies (albeit perhaps with a computer chip modification which right now costs $80 per lens)? Just a thought.

Thanks, david.

 

I probably should have mentioned in the original post that I make 3-5 trips down the coast from SF each year specifically for photography, so this time I'm not itching to go that way. I've spent quite a bit of time in the eastern sierra, and have also done death valley. I also drive I-5 back and forth to L.A. once or twice a year, so most of the comments were good, but things I already considered, and places I've already been. Mojave was what I had in mind since it is along the quickest way there. But it sounds unappealing after this discussion.

 

I will choose between the quick and dirty central valley route and the eastern sierra via south lake tahoe route suggested by David. Thanks and I'll post a follow up in may.