The other time I was also looking for a way around BlackRapid's reliance on using the camera body tripod mount.

I found this instead.

http://davidduchemin.com/2008/12/pimping-the-r-strap/

It shows a Canon body but the idea is there. Use back only one of the original strap eyelet ring on the camera body with a bungee cord like what Thinktank does for some of their bags. One of the readers gave a comment to use the left eyelet so that the strap does not get in the way when shooting vertical or horizontal.

Yes, was thinking that coupled with a lens like 70-200mm f/2.8, it'll be a little heavy. Not to mention additional stress to the Nikon lens mount.

If the lens itself has it's own strap ring like the 200mm f/2.0 or 300mm f/2.8, that would be fine.

Yes, I think Optech one is cheaper and more importantly if you want a system that uses the original strap eyelet. Cotton Carrier for me looks a little weird with the camera hanging on the chest.

Forgot to mention another brand which is Carry Speed. Some say it's a knock off from BlackRapid but I must say a very good knock off with some great innovations added. I like that they provide an arca swiss plate with a swivel ball connector which distributes the force / weight instead of hanging directly from the screwed tripod mount. It also gives you convenience of mounting the camera on a tripod / monopod as the ball connector can be folded to one side.

Also, I like the fact that there is an option for long lens attachment. The main plate goes onto the lens foot while a secondary connection goes to the tripod mount on the camera body.



Your camera with the ball connector plate can also be made to hook onto the Spider holster if required.

Give me a 70-200 and I'll give a go.

I actually have the older Tamron 90mm f/2.5 (not f/2.8) 52EN lens. It's not 1:1 macro. Only 1:2. Very smooth buttery bokeh.

Best is Carry Speed's 3 button snap clip. Else, get this accessory from Optech or mod yourself a velcro to secure the clip.

Yeah, that would work fine. Some people use zip tie but that would mean that difficult to detach in the field without physically cutting it.

LOL No. I have the 400mm f/2.8.

Yes, like you mentioned, it depends on individual style and personal preference. I'm one of those who think the 50mm on DX is neither here nor there. I'm quite pleased with the performance and outcome when I used it, but definitely feel focal lengths like the 85mm or even the 135mm on DX was more comfortable to me.

Definitely cheaper to go 3rd party. Anyway, it depends on how serious you want to be in the hobby. Usually, 3rd party lenses perform slightly less than their original counterparts except for the newer breed of Sigma 35mm f/1.4 or Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lenses. Hope more are coming.

It's generally a compromise. But if you're a casual shooter and want something that works decent but does not break the bank, 3rd party lenses are the way to go.

If you find yourself getting serious and would see yourself grow more into the hobby, you'll make the same exercise of dumping your old gear and upgrading to the more expensive originals and at the same time take a loss on the old 3rd party gear. Note that usually non 3rd party Nikon lenses usually command a higher 2nd hand price and are usually more sought after. Hence you don't have to worry about huge losses in the event you need to sell your original Nikon lenses.

Is the lighting enough for f/2.8? What ISOs were you metering from your x100?

The longer lenses require higher shutter speed if you don't have image stabilization / VR. A way of getting around this is a monopod. It sometimes hinder flexibility but helps to ease the weight a lot for long hours.

The D7000 is fine for high ISOs but if you consistently hit 3200 or 6400, you'll be better with full frame bodies like the D700 or opt for bigger aperture lenses like dvlzplayground mentioned (85mm f/1.8). But if you need larger DoF, smaller apertures will require higher ISOs. Else, invest in an external flash / speedlight.

AF can be quite important when you want to shoot candids. Push pull is very old optics but much cheaper. Try and find the newer 2 touch AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8. Both still stellar though. The Sigma can be faster focusing and quite comparable in image quality.

Everything is a compromise. Heavy but images will be excellent when properly executed.

The 85mm f/1.8 prime (or any primes) is nice but if one wants to cover a wedding event, a zoom is handy. Especially if you are going solo. If you're a backup shooter, is ok to miss some important shots.

Reminds me that I still have a slightly fogged 35-70mm f/2.8 that probably needs a few elements replaced. Can opening it up and physically cleaning it help to permanently clear the fog? If fungus, it's more serious since lens coating is affected.

The loss when selling a FF Nikon lens is less than say selling off a 3rd party lens.

Anyway, usually the reason people upgrade to FF is because of the need to go wider and of course for better noise performance.

By right, nothing changes. Shutter speed, aperture and ISO remain the same provided the metering bias remain the same. But of course you'll notice that some camera underexposes to protect highlights or tends to overexpose to meter for shadows.

Concerning ISO performance, it's all about light gathering ability and efficiency of the sensor. The more dense the sensor, the smaller the pixels and smaller pixels with smaller surface area have less light gathering efficiency and this translates to noise.

But of course nowadays you have digital processors that do the work background trying to optimise the image. So even though with high dense sensors, it still gives relatively less noise.

Like mentioned earlier, this is a work of the newer metering system in newer bodies that usually tends to overexpose i.e. biased metering to the right (TTR).

I mount a 77mm Canon 500D +2 diopter screwed onto the AF-S 300mm f/4. I prefer this to extension tubes since there's no loss of effective maximum aperture with the diopter.

With just the bare lens, the AF-S 300mm f/4 has a MFD of 5 feet. If I'm not wrong, I get about 1 to 2 feet working distance with the 500D mounted on. While not really a 1:1 macro lens, I get magnification between 1:1.7 to 1:1.1 which is fine. It's heavy though but I don't complain because macro is not something I'm fully into.

If you're really into 1:1 macro, there's no substituting a real macro lens. But if you want something that can get you real close to your subject without spooking it or because of safety, you want a longer working distance between you and your subject, a normal zoom coupled with extension tubes or diopters is the way to go.

Slap on 1.4x TC on your 70-200 and get a Canon 500D diopter. Yeah, you won't get 1:1 but pretty close. A 300mm f/4L IS coupled with the 500D, you'll be closer to 1:1. Else opt for the 180L.

Alamak. I guess I'll probably look around for a cheap 2nd hand non working lens and try to cannibalize the parts.

That's what I hear about the Canon TSE.

On the Nikon, you can get wider angle shots by doing verticals / portrait shots with a 24mm PCE. Take 3 shots (left shit, no shift and right shift) and the stitch is perfect. No distortion. Widest angle.

Can... Just need specialised filters like the Wonderpanna from Fotodiox.

No such Nikon or Canon beast exist. Only a 600mm f/4.

A Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 zoom does.



Posted recently on NR of a frozen 600mm f/4.



A fisheye that does not give fisheye effect?

I still have mine. Quality is not too bad. It's a DX only lens and I used it quite often on a D40x as well as on the D300 when I wanted to shoot in low light. I shot quite a bit with it when my daughter was born in the delivery room.

If I recall, I've tried it only a few times on the D700 in FX mode. Vignettes quite a bit but centre is sharp.



I think you're referring to an older AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8 lens. Can only get 2nd hand as it's no more in production.



The newer one with nanocoat is the AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8.



Pics borrowed from YL Camera.

Some batches have problem with AF. What body are you using? Some bodies can do AF reliably in low light, some not. What AF mode? 3D Dynamic, AF-S or AF-C? Which AF point are you using?

Try to use AF-S and single point focus. Select and use the centre AF point if possible (or any other AF sensors that are cross type) in outdoor day time to make sure sufficient lighting so that you can rule out user error.

I was a little naive those times and did not do AF fine tune. But now I do especially with high density high megapixel sensors and big aperture lenses. Besides, AF fine tune is a standard feature on most new DSLRs. I even got the LensAlign tool just to be able to do this accurately.

On a side note, I envy something that Canon bodies are able to do during AF fine tune that the Nikon does not. The ability to do AF fine tune for a zoom lens... With the Nikon, you can only fine tune the lens at either the wide end or the tele end.

Firstly from the photos posted, I don't know if it's a fungus to begin with ! Looks more like normal dust specs.

What did Nikon say? Are those 3 spots really fungus?

If I want a quick turn around, I usually head to Nikon in Menara PKNS. I can speak to the tech to quickly confirm a problem if I suspect there is one.

Yup. Ways of circumventing that is to focus stack.

But then again if you're shooting landscapes at super wide angles at say 14mm and at f/8 on a D800, focus at hyperfocal distance of around 0.8m in front of you and anything from around 0.4m to infinity would be in focus.

For 16mm and at f/8 on a D800, focus somewhere at hyperfocal distance of around 1m in front of you and anything from around 0.5m to infinity would be in focus.

Not sure on the diffraction limit on the newer 24MP DX sensors though.

You're looking at D400 / D7100 now ah?

Sure or not? Any example?

AF 135mm f/2.0



I held a MKIII a few times. It actually feels very nice in the hands.

Too saturated that can overcook the picture.

Canon shutter sound very lembut. Very good for stage performances where you need quiet shutter. In those instances, I wish I had a Canon.

No chance to test the Sigma. If somebody can loan me, I can do a quick match up with the Nikon.

Expensive. But not as expensive as the wider 24mm f/1.4 brother.

This post has been edited by jchue73: Sep 24 2013, 09:05 AM

Yes, I've put it in my sweaty hand a few time but I've not used it to compare side by side with a Nikon.

I take it they have similar picture style settings to our Nikon. Bump up saturation with a slightly warmer WB and you're there.

Looks good. Never knew they had different flower collections.

Wah. So good until can make profit out of it? You should be flattered because your shots must be damn good in the first place for people to make money out of it.

I know what you mean. Time to invest in ND filter. 2 or 3 stops is fine.

Usually tripods I've come across has two spirit bubble levels.

Else, newer Nikon bodies have Virtual Horizon that makes use of the camera's built-in dual axis level sensors which can be viewed under Live View or in the viewfinder.

I have a Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC (HSM) but nobody's interested to buy.

200mm is not enough for birding. Local birds are skittish / shy and very small. You need 500mm or even up to 800mm. That means BIG MONEY.

If you're interested in shooting birds with your 200mm, stick with the zoo or bird park.

You can get various type of microfiber cloth and in different qualitites. You have microfiber cloth suitable for cleaning kitchen table or it may be a possibility that the microfiber cloth you use is already trapped with dirt and sand. Just saying.

Not my photo.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/18842924@N03/3452986177/

Yes, what do you want to know about it?

Once you get exposure for the background, use manual mode and underexpose it by 1 stop. Let the speedlight balance exposure and illuminate the subject.

You require pro DX bodies for sports?