todd peach seattle, washi

<p>That style of case was briefly popular for a few years in the late 70's / early 80's, if memory serves. </p>

<p>We sold them from one of the semi-generic case houses whose name escapes me - I'm stuck on "Patterson", but that's probably the darkroom gear.</p>

<p>I had one like it but closer to briefcase shape that I had a Wista 4x5 field camera and accessories in.</p>

<p>I assumed Nikon had a run made in yellow with logos.</p>

<p>I have chosen the Domke F-4AF, over and over (I think I've bought at least 4-5 of them).</p>

<p>I think it's the right size for lots of situations. It's 'small' on the hip, but it's large enough internally to hold a Nikon D2Hs w/ 17-55mm f/2.8 mounted.</p>

<p>I find it a great bag to work out of - it stays over your shoulder and on your hip while you fish a lens out of it. This is not a 'must set it down to use it' sort of bag (backpacks and hard briefcases generally have to be set down to unload).<br>

It is not waterproof. It is not overly padded. Your gear might get nicked up in this bag.<br>

Why have I owned so many?</p>

<ol>

<li>Original one - personal use</li>

<li>Bought one for the workplace for a company owned camera</li>

<li>Bought another personal one - digital in this one, film cameras in the older one</li>

<li>and 5. - replacing #'s 1 and 3 after a break-in. Now one is my digital bag, and the other is a perpetual 'loaner' bag. When ever somebody borrows a piece of kit from me, it goes out in that bag....</li>

</ol>

If you do 'longish' exposures with the flash and a tripod, try rear curtain sync.

 

People are conditioned to 'hold still' until the flash goes off. Rear curtain sync cuts down on ghostly blur-through under

those conditions.

It works.

 

I'd demo it for you, but an iPad works differently.

 

I've posted dozens of photos in threads over the years to illustrate points. I have almost nothing in the gallery here.

<p>It's a little quirky, but it's doable. Here's a link to the FAQ:<br>

http://www.photo.net/info/frequent-questions#upload_forum_images</p>

<p>Kristina -<br>

The shot you posted did not use bounce flash, at least not as I understand it. When you see that hard-edged shadow (that you could trace and ID the subject if you know them well!) it's a clear indication that the light was essentially a 'point source' - direct flash.</p>

<p>You can mess with settings to balance the ambient light, but for most folks who are struggling to learn how to make their flash photos 'more natural looking', you probably wouldn't have chosen to use the flash if there was enough light there already!</p>

<p>The dome diffuser that came with the SB-800 'helps', but it's also helpful to understand what it does, what it doesn't do, and play around with it. Thoughts of mine (others will have different opinions):</p>

<ul>

<li>The dome scatters light in all directions. If you're standing outside at night on grass, it's mostly a waste, as the scattered light mostly needs to bounce off of light-colored indoor surfaces to have the desired effect</li>

<li>The dome 'wastes' flash horsepower. It cuts down on your max distance and increases your recycle time. There may be times when you need to 'ditch the dome' because of this. If you have a situation where you value fast follow up over quality of light, ditch the dome. </li>

</ul>

<p>I have not personally used the Gary Fong, but I think working with what you have, gaining an understanding of what works and why (John's link is an excellent start) is where I'd go before dropping $100 on a light modifier. After you've gained that understanding, you might go back for a Gary Fong, or maybe you'll want a flash cord, a commander, or even a second flash.</p>

<p>Try bouncing the light from the SB-800 off of the ceiling. Tilt the flash head, aiming at the ceiling at about the mid-point of distance between you and the subject. That way, the light will be softer and come from above with fewer harsh shadows.</p>

<p>You can also use the bounce card or the dome-shaped diffuser when bouncing, and this kicks a little light forward, giving an effect most of us like.</p>

<p>I guess I can see both sides of this. </p>

<p>On the one hand, they should do as you desire, since you're in essence 'doing them a favor'.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I'm used to thinking of a copyright holder as some sort of 'legal entity' - a person's name or a corporation (corporations are people too? j/k).</p>

<p>Using your logic, I could list my street address as the copyright holder with no name, and then how would anybody ever get approval to reproduce the photos, come to my door and knock? And after I've moved to my retirement condo, then what?</p>

<p>Ashley -<br>

I'm not as familiar with Canon as I am Nikon, but a quick scan of a T3i review tells me that the central AF point is superior to the others (like many Nikons). If you're not currently using the central AF point in low light or tricky light (particularly with your 50mm f/1.8), you might find it noticeably quicker to react for AF.</p>

<p>The only other advice I can repeat from above is to 'hunt for edges' to AF on. At portrait distances, the best 'edge' is usually the eye, which has good contrast. At slightly longer distances (like a 3-4 group shot at a party), I'll often AF on the 'edge' of a tie against a contrasting shirt, or the edge where a dark lapel overlaps a shirt, something like that.</p>

<p>Most modern AF SLRs and DSLRs have focus screens that make it very difficult to evaluate focus manually. They don't have much 'tooth' (the texture that used to be pretty common the ground glass for focus screens) so they *appear* to be in focus when they might not actually be. There's multiple reasons for this 'evolution', but some of them include the use of beam splitters to send some light to AF modules and metering cells, the advent of built-in flash (which takes away from prism real-estate) and use of cheaper materials (mirrors in lieu of prisms).</p>

<p>That's maybe more than you wanted to know....</p>

<p>I think a fair majority of photographers who use these modern AF wonders leave them in AF most of the time. The conscious act of 'focusing' is reduced to setting the proper 'point' in a multi-point AF system that's closest to the item you want in focus. It can also involve pointing the AF sensor directly at your desired focus point, locking focus, and then slightly re-composing before shooting.</p>

<p>Maybe this looks bad 'pixel peeping' on your monitor? It looks fine to me. The minimal ghosting adds dynamism to my way of thinking.</p>

<p>If it is in proper alignment, it is designed to hold focus when zoomed, particularly when zoomed back from 70mm. There were a handful of lenses in the past that were not designed this way, and they were not marketed as 'zooms', but as 'vari-focal' lenses. One that I owned happened to also be vaguely similar lens, the Vivitar Series 1 35-85 f/2.8.</p>

<p>I have owned several copies of that Nikon 35-70 f/2.8, and it's devastatingly sharp if the stars are in alignment. But it can get out of alignment, and then it's a bit soft.</p>

<p>The marks that Ariel is drawing your attention to are for "re-focus" when using infrared film (or I suppose an IR digital camera, but I know less about that). The theory goes that you focus using visible light, and then "correct" or "re-focus" to the IR plane by moving the focus point to one of those two marks, depending on your focal length. The lens focuses differently in the IR region than it does in visible light.</p>

<p>As JDM says, any lens disassembly, and especially a zoom lens, is not for the faint of heart. I've done a handful myself, but they were either junk to begin with, or I had guidance from an internet sage who had gone before me to help me avoid the typical pitfalls.</p>

<p>In a Nikon branded lens, you're looking for "AF-S". This signifies that the lens has a "Silent Wave" motor embedded in it, and it will autofocus with your 5000 (which does not have the body "screwdriver" AF motor).</p>

<p>There are a handful of older "AF-I" lenses that will also work, but they were mostly professional Super Telephoto lenses that you're unlikely to cross paths with given the context of your question.</p>

<p>I used to advocate for lens speed above all else if you were interested in indoor sports (you know, a 70-200mm f/2.8, or an 85mm f/1.4) but higher ISO cameras like yours have me re-thinking that. If you can *afford* those lenses, they'll do a very fine job. Nowadays, something like this:</p>

<p ><a id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_GvProduct_ctl13_aDesc" href="http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA079990884470?r=FE"> 70-300 F4.5-5.6 G ED-INTERNAL FOCUS AF-S VR (67) 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS ZOOM TELEPHOTO LENs</a></p>

<p >for $590 (before rebate) might be a logical choice.</p>

<p>Are you using the green "in focus" indicator? If all is well, that should work even if your diopter is gacked.</p>

<p>Then again, your lens might well be bent. It didn't take much of a knock on the Series E lenses (at least the early ones) to throw them out of alignment. Sometimes this is subtle, and f/8 and beyond will still be acceptably sharp, while wide open it will be obvious the lens has issues.</p>

<p>I have custody of a corporate camera that I really should just throw away.</p>

<p>It's an early generation Kodak digital P&S. It was in the custody of one of our executive secretaries, and it sat in a cabinet for years. One day a visiting executive asked if 'We had a camera he could borrow' (this was before cell phone cams were so common). The secretary pulled this camera out of the cabinet, put in fresh AAs (gives you an idea of the age also) and handed it to him.</p>

<p>He came back from his demo, handed the camera to the secretary, and asked her to email him the photos. After realizing she had not a clue how to do that, she sought me out (I was the unofficial event shooter for the org). </p>

<p>The camera either had no cable for data output, or it was something proprietary (maybe a 'dock'?). I pulled the CF card and managed to pull the files in, but they were in a proprietary format. It took me a few hours of fussing on the internet to find a driver that could decode the files; even then I had to load some old version of image processing software to get that driver to work.</p>

<p>In the end, I refused to return the camera on the grounds that it was more or less useless. I still have it (seven years later?), and I guess it's time to dig it out and go through bureaucratic channels to surplus / destroy it.</p>

<p>crickets chirping.....</p>

<p>You might try your Q in the NikonRepair group at Yahoo:<br>

<a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonRepair/">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonRepair/</a><br>

(I moderate here and there - good luck!)</p>

<p>It might seem counter-intuitive, but "outdoor wedding" means biggest flash you can afford (to me).</p>

<p>It takes a surprising amount of flash "horsepower" to match the sun at any sort of range beyond 5-6 feet. And it really helps to have seamless integration with your camera's automated systems.</p>

<p>Assuming the SB-900 is out of your price range, then the -700 is the way to go.<br>

<img src="http://mce_host/beginner-photography-questions-forum//farm4.static.flickr.com/3182/5802346742_79dcb37ccd_z.jpg 2HC_5188 by Mr_Peach, on Flickr" alt="" /><br>

(attached image shot with Nikon D2Hs and SB-800 - fill flash just soften the shadows on a bright day)</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>OFF the camera, the lens appears to function correctly. The lens remains wide open until I move the aperture coupling prong. It then closes to the set f-stop in quick and clean fashion, reopening swiftly when the coupler is released.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to be pedantic, but isn't this bass-ackwards? Off the camera, the lens at rest should be closed down. It takes tension on the aperture coupling prong to hold the lens open.</p>

<p>I'm with Bob, a bent lever is a likely cause.</p>

<p>What William said.</p>

<p>Put another way, if your style depends on a 70-200 f/2.8 and your day will be ruined without one, you'll probably convince yourself to have a spare. Or in my case, a relatively lower tech 80-200 f/2.8 (no AFS, no VR).</p>

<p>Panasonic Lumix LX-5, here. Has a nice 24mm equivalent fast zoom lens and good low light capability. It's "coat pocket" size, not shirt pocket; still tiny compared to my D2Hs.</p>

<p>I always removed them. When I was coming up in photography, the "passed" sticker screamed "newby" to me.</p>

<p>True story: when I was about nineteen, I crossed the border into Canada with a band so I could photograph them in a Vancouver nightclub. On our return (at 0300), the US Border Patrol / Customs folks decided that our van needed a full inspection.</p>

<p>When they got to me and my camera bag, the agent wanted proof that I had purchased the equipment in the USA. The reason he was suspicious: "You don't have the 'passed' stickers on your equipment."</p>

<p>I blurted the first thing my slightly alcohol-addled nineteen-year-old brain thought of: "Surely you can't be that stupid!" He confiscated all my equipment.</p>

<p>Fortunately for me, I had an hour to stew about it while they destroyed the van. I remembered my itemized insurance papers, a copy of which were in the bag, under the floor board (a 'hidden compartment' - ooooh). I ended up leaving with my gear intact.</p>

 

<p>I don't recall the formula in a way I could write it down, but I did sketch it all out once and put it on my website where I could refer to it:<br>

http://www.thepeaches.com/photography/fractional_stops.htm<br>

Your answer (f/1.8 + 2 stops) = f/3.5</p>

<p>More like Sigma lenses and Nikon cameras. From time to time Nikon updates the AF protocol and Sigma lenses won't get it right.</p>

<p>The last time I'm aware of (I had a problem) was when Nikon unveiled multi-point AF back in the F100.</p>

<p>I'm having a little trouble understanding this. Does it simply wind twice? Or how do you get the wind lever to advance again without the shutter release?</p>

<p>I don't suppose you have access to an MD-12 motor drive? I wonder if that would change the behavior (since it helped when you "bottom fed" the winder).</p>

<p>I can tell you from experience that Thom researches the crap out of his technical writings. On the rare occasion that he needs help, he asks for it and acts on it.</p>