dSLR thread

[mubs]

When I had bought my D700, I had also bought a Sandisk Firewire Compact Flash reader which I used a few times. Firewire created problems on my PC, so I pulled the add-on card out. Had to fall back on my 2006 era card reader. 286 Files, 2.87 GB

14:20 mins:secs to copy from card to PC using Dazzle USB 2.0; avg. speed 2-3 MB

01:18 mins:secs to copy from card to PC using new Transcend USB 3.0; average speeds 35-40 MB

 

[LunarMist]

I have one if those and it is fine, though there are extra drive letters.

 

[snowhiker]

LensCap+ should cover most damage. Was it caused by a tipped tripod?

No tipped tripod.

Somewhere in Arches NP I must have bumped the bottom of the camera and a small piece of plastic that holds the battery door in place broke off. I didn't even notice until the next day when I want to swap the battery and the battery door came off into my hand.

I really like the D500 and it's controls. The AF-ON button and the AF point directional thumb-joystick are perfectly placed for easy use. The directional keypad on the D610 used to move the AF point requires an awkward bending of the thumb for use. The D500 is more comfortable to hold than the D610, although a D610+grip feels better than a naked D500 without a battery grip. I would definitely buy a battery grip for the D500. Both cameras still use the same awkward Nikon menu UI. Once you figure out where the things you use are, it's easy enough to use. The tilty-flippy screen is nice as is the touch screen to quickly zoom in to check focus and exposure.

At the end of the night at the hotel I'd hook up the cameras (one at a time) to the TV with a HDMI cable so we could examine the days shooting. While the D610 worked every time, The D500 would not work on one of the TVs. Perhaps the TV didn't recognize the D500. Two of the motel rooms had TVs without HDMI ports or HDMI ports that we couldn't get to because the TV was bolted to the wall/cabinet. $89/night motels do not guarantee you a room with a TV you can hook a camera up to via HDMI cable.

The D500 eats batteries. I had airplane more turned ON so all wireless functions should have been turned OFF. I didn't shoot any video. I didn't use snapbridge or bluetooth. I got 650-750 shots on a fully charged Nikon EN-EL15 (Lion 20) battery. Not the 1000+ I get with the D610.

All that being said, I'd recommend the D500 for action/sports/BIF/wildlife shooters. However, even when paired with a 14-24mm lens, a crop camera is not a good choice for landscape shooting. A 21-36mm FoV equivalent lens is just not wide enough for landscape work.

I used the D500 in "M"anual mode with auto-ISO on. I shot mostly at f/5.6 as DoF was not an issue when focused past 4-5 feet. The 14-24 lens is sharpest at f/5.6. I then adjusted the shutter speed to drop the ISO down to 100. Plenty of light so I was shooting at ISO 100, 1/250 to 1/1000sec & f/5.6 most of the time. I set exposure compensation to underexpose 2/3 of a stop to protect against inadvertently blowing highlights. I shot 14-bit lossless compressed RAWs + JPGs to the memory card with the second memory card set to backup mode. I got about 950-1000 RAW+JPG files on one 64 GB memory card. I shot 1737 frames. At least 10 are decent/good. I will post links later next week/end.

 

[LunarMist]

No tipped tripod.

Somewhere in Arches NP I must have bumped the bottom of the camera and a small piece of plastic that holds the battery door in place broke off. I didn't even notice until the next day when I want to swap the battery and the battery door came off into my hand.

I really like the D500 and it's controls. The AF-ON button and the AF point directional thumb-joystick are perfectly placed for easy use. The directional keypad on the D610 used to move the AF point requires an awkward bending of the thumb for use. The D500 is more comfortable to hold than the D610, although a D610+grip feels better than a naked D500 without a battery grip. I would definitely buy a battery grip for the D500. Both cameras still use the same awkward Nikon menu UI. Once you figure out where the things you use are, it's easy enough to use. The tilty-flippy screen is nice as is the touch screen to quickly zoom in to check focus and exposure.

At the end of the night at the hotel I'd hook up the cameras (one at a time) to the TV with a HDMI cable so we could examine the days shooting. While the D610 worked every time, The D500 would not work on one of the TVs. Perhaps the TV didn't recognize the D500. Two of the motel rooms had TVs without HDMI ports or HDMI ports that we couldn't get to because the TV was bolted to the wall/cabinet. $89/night motels do not guarantee you a room with a TV you can hook a camera up to via HDMI cable.

The D500 eats batteries. I had airplane more turned ON so all wireless functions should have been turned OFF. I didn't shoot any video. I didn't use snapbridge or bluetooth. I got 650-750 shots on a fully charged Nikon EN-EL15 (Lion 20) battery. Not the 1000+ I get with the D610.

All that being said, I'd recommend the D500 for action/sports/BIF/wildlife shooters. However, even when paired with a 14-24mm lens, a crop camera is not a good choice for landscape shooting. A 21-36mm FoV equivalent lens is just not wide enough for landscape work.

I used the D500 in "M"anual mode with auto-ISO on. I shot mostly at f/5.6 as DoF was not an issue when focused past 4-5 feet. The 14-24 lens is sharpest at f/5.6. I then adjusted the shutter speed to drop the ISO down to 100. Plenty of light so I was shooting at ISO 100, 1/250 to 1/1000sec & f/5.6 most of the time. I set exposure compensation to underexpose 2/3 of a stop to protect against inadvertently blowing highlights. I shot 14-bit lossless compressed RAWs + JPGs to the memory card with the second memory card set to backup mode. I got about 950-1000 RAW+JPG files on one 64 GB memory card. I shot 1737 frames. At least 10 are decent/good. I will post links later next week/end.

Any focal length can be used for landscapes. Everything does not have to be wide.
f/5.6 is not enough for many images even with wide-angle lenses. If you don't have a computer, then zooming in on the rear LCD is the best option for checking images.

I never had any use for EC in M on a Nikon body. Are you having trouble metering and reviewing the histograms?
Bracket when in doubt. Memory is cheap and you can delete later.

 

[snowhiker]

Any focal length can be used for landscapes. Everything does not have to be wide.

That is true.

I wished I had a 24-70mm when shooting the cliff dwellings from across the canyons at Mesa Verde NP. The 36mm effective focal length on the D500 was not enough, while my 105mm was too much. That being said, I sorely wished for a wider FoV more often than a narrower one. Perhaps just my shooting style. A 24-70, or 24-85 lens would definitely help isolate distance subjects better.

f/5.6 is not enough for many images even with wide-angle lenses. If you don't have a computer, then zooming in on the rear LCD is the best option for checking images.

As I recall the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor focuses from approx 1-2.5 feet, then everything after that is infinity. So if I focus on a near object that is 5 feet away, it and everything else up to infinity should be in focus at f/5.6 correct? I did drop to f/2.8 when isolating a flower/plant and jumped up to f/11 if I wanted a close object and infinity in focus.

I never had any use for EC in M on a Nikon body. Are you having trouble metering and reviewing the histograms? Bracket when in doubt. Memory is cheap and you can delete later.

I'm still not at the point yet where I completely know how to read/understand/use a histogram. I still have some things to learn and practice. I just figured that if I underexpose 2/3 stop that will "cover" any blown highlights. Anything that looked really bad on the LCD screen was further underexposed or overexposed to compensate for any exposure changes due to shooting into shadows or into sun.

 

[snowhiker]

I shot 1737 frames. At least 10 are decent/good.

Doh. Actual number of frames is 2736. Apparently the Nikon file system creates a new folder as the card fills up. Forgot to copy one of the folders off one of the memory cards. So maybe 15 decent/good shots. Good thing I didn't format the memory cards immediately after the first copy.

 

[LunarMist]

Are you at least using LV and zooming in 100% to see if the DOF is sufficient? At 14 mm a hyperfocal setting may work sometimes at large apertures, but at 24 mm that distance will be much longer, maybe 15 feet at f/5.6, depending on your criteria.

 

[ddrueding]

If you need wider than you have, just shoot multiple images and stitch. Particularly good for long stuff (no close objects to mess the stitch due to parallax) that are abnormally shaped (I bet 5 horizontal shots with the camera in portrait would work).

 

[LunarMist]

If you need wider than you have, just shoot multiple images and stitch. Particularly good for long stuff (no close objects to mess the stitch due to parallax) that are abnormally shaped (I bet 5 horizontal shots with the camera in portrait would work).

A tele zoom (70-200, 100-400 II, etc.), Wimberley SideKick, RRS BH-55, and a leveling base on a 3 series tripod are good for that.

 

[snowhiker]

If you need wider than you have, just shoot multiple images and stitch. Particularly good for long stuff (no close objects to mess the stitch due to parallax) that are abnormally shaped (I bet 5 horizontal shots with the camera in portrait would work).

I think it was that I rented a 1.5x crop body that I wanted to test out. If I had the 14-24mm lens on a full frame body I'd probably have enough wide angle. Renting the 14-24/2.8 really makes me wish I had spent the extra money and bought it instead of the 16-35/4. Beside the huge bulbous front element, it's actually a smaller lens. And I don't really need VR on a wide angle lens.

The Sigma 12-24mm f/4 lens tested pretty well. I hope Nikon updates their 14-24 sometime in 2017.

 

[LunarMist]

You should have purchased the rented copy if the condition was good.

 

[ddrueding]

A tele zoom (70-200, 100-400 II, etc.), Wimberley SideKick, RRS BH-55, and a leveling base on a 3 series tripod are good for that.

I just stick the 100-400 II on the Gigapan Epic, but for that kind of quickie going hand-held would be fine.

 

[LunarMist]

I have a Gigapan Epic pro whatever and it was a total waste.

 

[ddrueding]

?? Not enough control? In my experience it does exactly what it says; takes a bunch of pictures with the specified angle difference.

 

[LunarMist]

Not very stable with 1D series and 70-200/4 IS.
The whole setup is quite bulky/heavy and not good for hiking either. The battery and contoller are like something from the 1990s.

 

[LunarMist]

Nikon is worse. :crap:

 

[snowhiker]

Nikon is worse. :crap:

Hopefully cutting the fat and removing the folks that are close to retirement anyways.

 

[LunarMist]

Hopefully cutting the fat and removing the folks that are close to retirement anyways.

I doubt there is much fat left. Some is cutting R&D and some is moving more production to China. The masses are using Iphones, so the overall ILC market is dwindling rapidly.

 

[snowhiker]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

The joyous and wonderful sound of "Continuous High." Oh the mirror slapping goodness of it all. That sweet sound starts at 1m5s. Too bad a couple of windbags are trying to talk over it!

 

[DrunkenBastard]

Nikon is worse. :crap:

Looks like the majority of the cuts will be in the loss making lithography division. And they've lost tremendous marketshare due to insular thinking:

http://asia.nikkei.com/Markets/Tokyo-Market/Nikon-s-independent-streak-led-to-job-cuts

 

[LunarMist]

The 24-105/4 IS II is delayed until December. :cursin:

Now TDP test of the kit lens (out first for some stupid reason) is not looking very good.

 

[snowhiker]

Lunar (or anybody else) have any experience with ON1 Photo 10.5, photo editing software? ON1 Photo RAW being their soon to be released upgraded product.

-No cataloging/importing pics into database.
-No subscription.
-No Adobe.

 

[LunarMist]

Lunar (or anybody else) have any experience with ON1 Photo 10.5, photo editing software? ON1 Photo RAW being their soon to be released upgraded product.

-No cataloging/importing pics into database.
-No subscription.
-No Adobe.

What exactly are you trying to do?

 

[snowhiker]

What exactly are you trying to do?

Edit NEF files. Crop size, adjust exposure, bump contrast/colors, rotate flat my non-horizontal horizons, clone-out dust on sensor specs/minor problems with photo. That's about it. Don't have desire/skill to do much more.

Nikon's Capture NX-D is garbage. I just don't like it. Slow and crashes all the time. Don't like/want the Adobe Ps/Lr system. Tried paint.net and GIMP but they don't open NEF files. I'm willing to buy something, but not a subscription or Adobe. And I simply want to launch a program and go FILE|OPEN {filename.NEF} make a few edits, then SAVE AS {edited_filename.NEF} or {edited_filename.JPG}. DONE.

Something way easy to use more important than feature list.

 

[LunarMist]

Edit NEF files. Crop size, adjust exposure, bump contrast/colors, rotate flat my non-horizontal horizons, clone-out dust on sensor specs/minor problems with photo. That's about it. Don't have desire/skill to do much more.

Nikon's Capture NX-D is garbage. I just don't like it. Slow and crashes all the time. Don't like/want the Adobe Ps/Lr system. Tried paint.net and GIMP but they don't open NEF files. I'm willing to buy something, but not a subscription or Adobe. And I simply want to launch a program and go FILE|OPEN {filename.NEF} make a few edits, then SAVE AS {edited_filename.NEF} or {edited_filename.JPG}. DONE.

Something way easy to use more important than feature list.

I don't know why you have a problem with the NX-D. You can try Capture One or DXO. Typically the NEF file is not changed, only the metadata or recipe for a certain software to process the files. Adobe and current Nikon software use separate files containing the metadata. If output is not in a more durable format such as 16-bit TIFF, you may find the ability to reprocess with the same parameters limited by software upgrades. Many people are locked into Adobe LR for lifetime.

 

[mubs]

Is there a cheaper alternative to:

B+W 77mm F-Pro Kaesemann High Transmission Circular Polarizer MRC Filter

for use with

1) AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED and

2) AF-S VR-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G SWM VR ED IF

on my D700? Obviously don't want to use a crappy filter on these kinds of lenses.

I'll also be buying a Sensei 52-77mm Step-Up Ring so I can use the 77 mm filter on my 52 mm dia AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D.

Thanks.

 

[LunarMist]

Is there a cheaper alternative to:

B+W 77mm F-Pro Kaesemann High Transmission Circular Polarizer MRC Filter

for use with

1) AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED and

2) AF-S VR-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G SWM VR ED IF

on my D700? Obviously don't want to use a crappy filter on these kinds of lenses.

I'll also be buying a Sensei 52-77mm Step-Up Ring so I can use the 77 mm filter on my 52 mm dia AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D.

Thanks.

In recent years I've a had too many problems with B+W polarizers becoming too stiff for use so I don't buy them anymore.
Mostly I use the Marumi Exus polarizing filters lately, though they are more expensive.
Also look at Breakthrough Photography polarizers. They specialize in filters that are as color neutral as possible.

 

[mubs]

Thanks Lunar. Between the two, I guess you prefer the Marumi? That's too expensive for me (I'm not a Pro!), but the Breakthrough seems reasonable - just a it over the B+W.

Final thoughts?

 

[LunarMist]

Thanks Lunar. Between the two, I guess you prefer the Marumi? That's too expensive for me (I'm not a Pro!), but the Breakthrough seems reasonable - just a it over the B+W.

Final thoughts?

There are a number of decent polarizing filters. The main differences are in the glass and mechanical designs. Obviously the glass should be extremely flat and well-coated. Multicoated doesn't mean much on cheap filters, but even some of the mid-grade filters have limited coating on one side. When most all lenses had metal female threads, brass filter rings were best as they tend not to bind as aluminum filters do. It's less of a problem on lenses with plastic threads. B+W is well known for the brass filter rings, but disappointing in the recent filters. You may be able to find something about binding polarizers online.
The other differences are in the polarizing materials. The newest materials have less light loss for non-polarized light, resulting is a lower filter factor. The difference is about 1/3 stop or so, and only important in a few marginal conditions. I really like the Marumi polarizers but also have some older B+W and Hoyas. There are so many varieties of Hoya polarizers that it can be confusing. The glass is good and the rings are easy to turn, but there are a fair number of reports that the retaining rings pop out resulting in the filter falling apart in the field. The best Hoyas are probably no cheaper than the other brands and have worked OK for me. Back to Breakthrough, I only have their ND filters to date and they are quite well made. It's a small company that sources Schott glass and has the filters made in small batches, so you would not have any service outside of the US.

 

[mubs]

Thanks Lunar. I think I'll go with the Breakthrough X2. On their own website they only show the X4, but it's $140! Way too much for me, and for my needs, I don't think I'll notice the difference in IQ - I'm not a pixel-peeper. I'll buy from them directly because they have an unconditional money back guarantee, no questions asked, for one year (of course no breakages or damage).

Reg. service, ain't a snowball's chance in hell of getting service for most any brand of filter here. That's why it's important to buy a good brand to begin with. I took a risk buying all that Nikon equipment in the US for two reasons: availability (at that time their presence here was quite poor) and price. Being purchased there, there would have been no warranty here. I'm way, way past the warranty period now. Canon and Nikon have beefed up their presence significantly and are very easily available now. Common to see average Joe on the street lugging a DSLR of one of these two brands. There are still issues with warranty support if bought online vs one of their "authorized" brick & mortar stores.

My future purchases (finances permitting) would be the 200-500 mm Zoom Nikkor, 105 mm Macro Nikkor and a tripod that can bear the weight of these monsters. As of now, these are a long way off, or not at all.

 

[snowhiker]

My future purchases (finances permitting) would be the 200-500 mm Zoom Nikkor, 105 mm Macro Nikkor and a tripod that can bear the weight of these monsters. As of now, these are a long way off, or not at all.

The 105/2.8G Micro is obviously a specialty lens. It's nice to have, but I don't use it as much as I thought I would. I wish I would have not gotten the 105 and 16-35/4 and used the money for those two on the 14-24/2.8 lens. Lesson learned.

The 200-500/5.6E is a monster, both in size and weight. But I'm glad I own it.

 

[LunarMist]

The 105/2.8G Micro is obviously a specialty lens. It's nice to have, but I don't use it as much as I thought I would. I wish I would have not gotten the 105 and 16-35/4 and used the money for those two on the 14-24/2.8 lens. Lesson learned.

The 200-500/5.6E is a monster, both in size and weight. But I'm glad I own it.

I find a 105 or 100 too short for critters. It's often good in the studio or for copy work, but an 85 or 90 T/S lens focuses close enough for semi-macro work and has the major advantage of tilt.

The 200-500 is not all that large, especially since it retracts. I still wish that lens were better on FX, but it is optically/mechanically limited to meet the cost category.

 

[mubs]

The 105/2.8G Micro is obviously a specialty lens. It's nice to have, but I don't use it as much as I thought I would.

Why not?

I wish I would have not gotten the 105 and 16-35/4 and used the money for those two on the 14-24/2.8 lens. Lesson learned.

I have the 24-70 2.8, and can't imagine needing a 14-24. Enlighten me!

The 200-500/5.6E is a monster, both in size and weight. But I'm glad I own it.

So you like it? I wish to get one someday.

I find a 105 or 100 too short for critters.

So what do you recommend then, Lunar?

 

[snowhiker]

The 200-500 is not all that large, especially since it retracts. I still wish that lens were better on FX, but it is optically/mechanically limited to meet the cost category.

Well compared to a 500/4 the 200-500 is smaller, but it's still 17" long @500mm w/lens shade and 5+ pounds.

The one major problem with the 200-500 is sample variation. Several photographers on YouTube describe their experience of having to return one or even two+ lenses to get a good copy. Seems Nikon makes three versions of this lens: 1) stellar, 2) OK, 3) garbage. So it's a crap shoot on getting a good lens.

 

[snowhiker]

mubs, to answer your questions:

1) I never had a real desire to shoot macro, but thought it would be cool and I thought I would eventually like it more than I do. I think that's partially because I've never gone on a specific "macro shoots" and/or shot somewhere with a high density of macro opportunities. Before you drop $1000'ish on the macro lens, know how/when/where/why you will use it so it doesn't end up just sitting in your bag.

2) Landscapes. You can't have a wide enough lens for landscape. Especially in the American south-west with such "huge landscapes" like the Grand Canyon, Zion, Arches NP, etc.

3) Yes I like the 200-500/5.6. I'm starting to like birding. You really need good light to shoot with that lens. The ISO really blows up if you shot hand-held at 1/2000@5.6. I need to get a good tripod/head to do things right. I also just need to just get out and do it more. And now that the temps around here have dipped below a 1000F I can now do just that.

 

[LunarMist]

mubs, to answer your questions:

1) I never had a real desire to shoot macro, but thought it would be cool and I thought I would eventually like it more than I do. I think that's partially because I've never gone on a specific "macro shoots" and/or shot somewhere with a high density of macro opportunities. Before you drop $1000'ish on the macro lens, know how/when/where/why you will use it so it doesn't end up just sitting in your bag.

2) Landscapes. You can't have a wide enough lens for landscape. Especially in the American south-west with such "huge landscapes" like the Grand Canyon, Zion, Arches NP, etc.

3) Yes I like the 200-500/5.6. I'm starting to like birding. You really need good light to shoot with that lens. The ISO really blows up if you shot hand-held at 1/2000@5.6. I need to get a good tripod/head to do things right. I also just need to just get out and do it more. And now that the temps around here have dipped below a 1000F I can now do just that.

1. Sure, but one could say that about any lens. Macro lighting can be difficult and should be mastered as well. At some point multiple lights and modifiers will be needed.

3. You should be using a gimbal of some sort. What are you using, a cheap 3-way or ball head?

 

[mubs]

The one major problem with the 200-500 is sample variation. Several photographers on YouTube describe their experience of having to return one or even two+ lenses to get a good copy. Seems Nikon makes three versions of this lens: 1) stellar, 2) OK, 3) garbage. So it's a crap shoot on getting a good lens.

That'll be a huge problem for me here. Can't risk getting a crappy one.

mubs, to answer your questions:

Thanks!

Macro lighting can be difficult and should be mastered as well. At some point multiple lights and modifiers will be needed.

3. You should be using a gimbal of some sort. What are you using, a cheap 3-way or ball head?

Sounds like way too much to learn and spend. At my age, my patience and fuse are short, and I can't spend endlessly on better and better stuff. Guess I'll just use what I have already. Thanks.

 

[LunarMist]

Lunar (or anybody else) have any experience with ON1 Photo 10.5, photo editing software? ON1 Photo RAW being their soon to be released upgraded product.

-No cataloging/importing pics into database.
-No subscription.
-No Adobe.

The pre-release is out. It's not really finished, but you can try it at least.

 

[LunarMist]

Now TDP test of the kit lens (out first for some stupid reason) is not looking very good.

Subsequent tests by the experts confirm it is mediocre. I'm glad I cancelled but bummed about that 70 to 100 gap.

 

[snowhiker]

In other lens news..........

The new $2800 Nikkor 70-200/2.8E is stellar. It's even better than the legendary Canon 70-200/2.8.