Dec 3, 2009 | Field Reports
That’s right, after who knows how many years (I know someone knows that answer), Nikon has updated the venerable BF-1A body cap. Yep, the new body cap first being seen on the D3s is a totally new design. Is that a big deal? Well, it can’t be accidentally used on a teleconverter (it would take some force which should warn you to stop) which is really common, especially on the TC-14e. And it’s really easy to put on and off with gloves. So those are two new things. The BF-1B (on the right) not easily mistaken for the cap for the TC-14e as with the BF-1A (on the left) when working in the dark is a biggie. That’s because the BF-1B had ridges which you can easily feel. Not earth shattering but I think it’s kinda cool since I’m the one handed teleconverter to when it comes time to take off the wrong body cap.
Dec 2, 2009 | Field Reports
Since you can’t see through the viewfinder when in Live View which is required for filming with the D3s, the grid of the E Screen isn’t available nor is the Virtual Horizon. Nikon thought this through. So when in Live View and you depress the Info button, you have a number of options you can see on the Monitor and one of them just happens to Virtual Horizon as you see here. Now what if you want to see the subject at the same time? I think that’s a work in progress but you simply hit the Info button to turn it off. Yeah, felt a little guilty for shameless plug so thought I would give you a feature. And then, I don’t have space to add this screen capture to the article :)
Dec 2, 2009 | Field Reports
Once you start reading, you’ll realize that Hottest isn’t what you think and not really a good thing. America’s Hottest Species highlights 10 species in trouble NOW from climate warming. What’s sad, there are actually more than these ten and IMHO some worse off then they list but that really doesn’t matter. I hope you take a second and give this a read, YOU and YOUR photography can make the difference!
Nov 30, 2009 | Field Reports
This question comes up a whole lot of late and wanted to once and for all get my answer out there in big, bold type. YES! I personally find the new version to be a tad sharper and have a little sharper contrast which leads to better color than the original 70-200VR. Does this mean you should go out and buy it, must you replace your older 70-200VR?
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/_BMP7402.swf, 585, 444 [/swf]
The question should really be, does the lens and its focal length 70-200 fit your style and solve photographic problems you face for your style of photography? This photograph of a Great Egret I took the other day when hanging with our bud RC and his camera club in Tampa (it’s when this image was made by RC). We were at Wall Springs and the egret was just below us and a easy click. Shot at f/2.8, just the top of the head down to the eye and tip of the bill is sharp and that’s just how I wanted it. But I didn’t buy the lens for wildlife.
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/_BMP3413.swf, 585, 444 [/swf]
Shot from the Brooklyn Bridge looking over at DUMBO, the crispness and color of this high rise really snaps with the 70-200VR2, but that’s not why I bought it either.
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/_BMP4499.swf, 585, 444 [/swf]
These seasonal decorations in a 5th Avenue window just couldn’t be passed up. I have no clue what I’ll ever do with this image but I really love the pattern, color and light. The 70-200VR2 did a great job with this subject too, but that’s not why I bought it. Why I bought the lens I can’t illustrate right now because I’ve not used it for that purpose and that’s air-to-air flight photography (that’s photographing a plane from another plane). But it’s all these attributes of the new lens that made me want it and want it for this one type of photography.
I’ve not owned a 70-200 for a lot of years, relied mostly on other focal lengths within the range for my photography including the 200f2VR. While not f/2, I do feel the 70-200VR2 delivers delicious performance easily making it the go to lens especially when I can only take one lens.
Photos captured by D3s, 70-200VR2 on Lexar UDMA digital film
Nov 30, 2009 | Field Reports
So you can now do video, what can you do with it? Keep in mind that at its highest res, 1280×720, the D3s can only capture a 5min video clip. So while it’s exciting for some to be able to do that, 5min does not make a movie. I’ve had a number of emails asking to see a sample of the D3s video at its highest res, so I went out to make a sample clip for you.
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/_BMP7282.swf, 585, 444 [/swf]
I shot in the 1280×720 space. I did attach the Rode external mic but being still a still photographer, forgot to turn it on so there is no sound (sound is very important to video). The final file out of the D3s is 268,820kb but putting it up to the web, the flash file is 34726kb so it’s been compressed. With that said, I think it’s pretty cool.
What I did to shoot it was pretty simple. The setup is D3s, 600VR w/TC-17e with the Live View set to Tripod (really your only option to use Contrast-Detection AF). All the focusing in the video is done by the camera using the AF-On button a couple of times to speed up AF acquisition. The camera is in Aperture Priority with -.5 exp comp dialed in. It really is pretty darn easy!
The cast of characters are Ruddy Turnstone, Laughing Gull, Willet & Marbled Godwit.
01.01.2013 Pages are in the process of being updated. In the meantime you can watch our videos on our YouTube Channel as well as all Videos are available on iTunes as Podcasts!
A full user report on the D3s & 70-200VR will be in the upcoming BT Journal. I also just filmed a 30 Quick Start video with the folks at Kelby Training. That should be up shortly. If not soon enough for you, bug them to get it up :)
Photo captured by D3s, 600VR w/TC-17e on Lexar UDMA digital film
Nov 27, 2009 | Field Reports
“What is your thought process before you take an image?” This is one of the most commonly asked questions I receive. It’s a very valid question. It presumes that people think I’m capable of thought (I like that assumption). Is there thought that goes into each photograph or perhaps more importantly, is photography purely an intellectual endeavor? The question hurts just thinking about it. Is there thought involved in the creative process of making a photograph? Before getting to that thought, I want to step back a moment to see if thinking can’t begin sooner and have more of an impact on our photography long before the moment of click. I would suggest that the thinking process might be more pure subconscious rather than conscious in a successful photograph. It’s the result of a natural reaction to the visual stimulation rather than one that’s thought through. Man, that’s a lot to think about for just a silly click!
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/NHO0127.swf, 444, 585 [/swf]
“Engage your brain before your mouth.” My dad tried to the very end to get that through my thick skull and while I’m doing better at that in verbal conversations, I know I’ve always done that in my visual communicating. I do think prior to pushing the shutter release, but I don’t think it’s the kind of thought most presume must occur. I’m not thinking f/stop and shutter speed. When it’s a landscape photo, I don’t think through the post processing anymore. I don’t even think about who that photograph should be sold to anymore. Nope, the most common thought this year when I’m behind the camera is simply, “How lucky I am to be here and behind the camera.” Luckily the photo making process is so conditioned the body and camera take over for the lack of thought.
I was incredibly fortunate when I started out in this photographic pursuit to have thoughts and ideas placed in my mind that guide me to this day. I had an instructor way back when who had a weekly assignment. We had to go into the library and just look at photography, photographs that were in print in books or magazines only. First, we had to find those that appealed to us. They didn’t have to be killer images, just ones we thought were cool. Then, and this was the heart of the assignment, we had to back engineer the photos and think through how they were created. For example, if you liked a product shot of a gulf club, you had to determine from the reflections what was lit with lights and what was lit with subtractive light (don’t know that term, looks like you’ve got some homework to do). We had to engage the brain and our knowledge of light in order to get an “A” on the assignment.
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/HB0284.swf, 585, 444 [/swf]
This exercise started to create a roadmap in my mind of the thought process that goes into the back end of a photograph, a studio shot where we are in control of the lighting. But my arena of photography is not in the studio and I’m anything but in control of the light. But light is light, that’s a novel thought. You place a light, be it a flash in a studio or the sun outdoors in front of a subject, the subject will be lit (I think). Get that light close to a subject and it wraps around it, move it far away and it becomes a spot. Thinking this through and applying what we learn when lighting a human face to the facial disk of a grizzly bear, how can we take the sun and have it mimic a SB-900 going through a 3×3 Lastolite? Think about it, how do we take the biggest spot light on the planet, the sun, and turn it into a giant softbox? That’s right, overcast or clouds or snow or sand or a combination of all of the above. What’s the common denominator? Light and thinking.
You watch someone like McNally light a subject, scene or story and you might assume he’s thinking it all through. He’s not thinking; he’s reacting. He’s not planning, but rather responding to the light. The thought came long ago, the thinking through of the problems occurred a lifetime ago. The magic of his craft (and it is a craft and he is the highest form of a craftsman) is the subconscious thought to the light and what he wants to communicate to you. He paid his dues and thought it through so long ago that now when his wild imagination goes to work, the light just naturally follows. Yeah, when he’s teaching you hear his thoughts, but I’ve been there when he’s making magic and it’s a magical experience as the light just simply comes on and the subject is born.
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/DMLARBP2894.swf, 444, 585 [/swf]
And that’s how the thought process should be. I do all my thinking before the camera ever goes to my eye. The stalk of the critter is based on the background, the f/stop selection based on that background and the story I want to tell. And exposure compensation is dialed into the camera in route to the subject. When the camera meets the eye, there is no thinking just reacting, watching the subject and making subtle changes to the position of the camera, doing the dance. Personally, if I had to be thinking and not reacting to the subject, I wouldn’t get the shot. I can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
[swf]http://www.moosepeterson.com/swf_imgs/jakefern.swf, 585, 444 [/swf]
So what am I thinking about when I put the camera to my eye? I’m not, that part of the photographic process is already done long before the camera comes up. It occurs when I have a new piece of gear and I figure out if it solves a problem and is worth buying in the first place. The thinking occurs still when admiring those photographs that catch my attention and imagination and I figure out what elements excite my vision. The thoughts fly through my mind when I look at my images each day that I captured that day. I think through what I did wrong and what I did right and, most importantly, think through what images I need to still capture to tell the story. There is no one thought going through my mind when I’m shooting. There’s a lifetime of thinking squeezed into every camera click.
That’s right, after who knows how many years (I know someone knows that answer), Nikon has updated the venerable BF-1A body cap. Yep, the new body cap first being seen on the D3s is a totally new design. Is that a big deal? Well, it can’t be accidentally used on a teleconverter (it would take some force which should warn you to stop) which is really common, especially on the TC-14e. And it’s really easy to put on and off with gloves. So those are two new things. The BF-1B (on the right) not easily mistaken for the cap for the TC-14e as with the BF-1A (on the left) when working in the dark is a biggie. That’s because the BF-1B had ridges which you can easily feel. Not earth shattering but I think it’s kinda cool since I’m the one handed teleconverter to when it comes time to take off the wrong body cap.
