dSLR thread

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
^^^ Awesome road trip Handy. Three weeks definitely not enough time to explore those parks, unless you stay in the car and drive through and never stop.

What time of the year did you take your trip? Were hoping for COLD weather and NO rain. And less poeple.

I'm only spending 9 days + 1 day to drive home. We are just going to explore each park as fully as possible before moving on. Probably won't do the whole trip. But enough is there that we won't run out of things to do. Plus if weather is bad we can move on to next park.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
I'm verified. Woot!

I just called lensrentals.com and I'm all verified (first time renter). I got 6 extra days (2 before, 4 after trip) on rental to play around with the D500 after my trip. Email below.

Order xxxxxx has been accepted by Will at LensRentals.com.

It will ship for arrival by 2016.10.24 as requested. We expect to ship your order on 2016.10.19. Your order may arrive early; in that case, don't worry, your rental period still won't begin until your requested arrival date.

A signature will be required for delivery.

Contents:
Product Description Price

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S
Hood - Nikon L-Cap14-24
17-day rental (with Lenscap+) $302.00

Nikon D500
Charger - Non-Polarized MH-25 Plug for Nikon
Charger - Nikon MH-25a
Manual - Nikon D500 Cheat Sheet / Paper Manual
Battery - Nikon EN-EL15 (Li20)
17-day rental (with Lenscap+) $295.00

Sony 128GB XQD 400MB/s G Series Memory Card
17-day rental (with Lenscap+) $55.00


Subtotal: $652.00
Shipping: $30.00
Sales tax: $50.85
Total: $732.85

As always, you may check on the status of your order at any time by logging into your LensRentals.com account.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,741
Location
USA
^^^ Awesome road trip Handy. Three weeks definitely not enough time to explore those parks, unless you stay in the car and drive through and never stop.

What time of the year did you take your trip? Were hoping for COLD weather and NO rain. And less poeple.

I'm only spending 9 days + 1 day to drive home. We are just going to explore each park as fully as possible before moving on. Probably won't do the whole trip. But enough is there that we won't run out of things to do. Plus if weather is bad we can move on to next park.

The trip I took was very unplanned. Each day we'd look at the map and estimate where we wanted to go and while on the way there the passenger in the car would call around looking for a place to stay in the given area. I went in middle of August which was pretty hot. The weather was interesting but mostly fine for the places we visited.

In my previous post I said that Bryce was my favorite park and that was not correct. I meant to say Zion was my favorite. I remember there being a big ole tree in front of one of the lodges that lots of people were just laying in the grass under it. We did the same and took a nap while laying on our backpacks. It was one of my fondest memories. I also liked that they paved the roads a natural red color to match the scenery. The busses that take you through the park were all natural gas so no extra smelly distractions. I really felt like they paid attention to the details to keep you in the theme of the park.

At the start of the trip we bought the annual park pass at the first park and more than recouped the fees from all the parks we visited. Well worth investing in it and I really think the national park service is fantastic in the US.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,692
Location
USA
I've done a couple similar trips to the locations you've outlined. The last one I did is mostly outlined here...I took two weeks off to drive through many of the national parks because we explored a bit in each of them. Bryce was one of my favorites with Canyonlands a very close second. I feel like I could have been there for three weeks there was so much to see and so many pictures to take.

I had been to Mesa Verde, Petrified Forest, Painted desert, Meteor crater, and a few others back in 2006. I remember spending a long time traveling through the Petrified Forest while stopping frequently to enjoy the views. Mesa Verde was more of a riding along in the car and seeing interesting things in the mountain sides from across the way. I don't recall why we didn't stop more but it may be because we were on our way to another location. I remember that it would have been nice to have a longer telephoto to get some of the details in the mountain side.

I visited the following parks back in late 2011:
Arches
Bryce
Canyonlands
Capitol Reef
Cedar Breaks
Dixie National forest
Natural Bridges
Zion
Gooseneck state park
Goblin Valley state park
Brian Head
Monument Valley
Grand canyon south rim

I've been to those places, but altogether a period of about 6 months and >100,000 frames.
One of the main problems is trying to do too much on each trip. Just to get good light sometimes you can only visit a few in a week.
May/June can be brutal with 3AM starts and 4 hours of sleep a night. September/October are better but weather can be an issue.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,741
Location
USA
I've been to those places, but altogether a period of about 6 months and >100,000 frames.
One of the main problems is trying to do too much on each trip. Just to get good light sometimes you can only visit a few in a week.
May/June can be brutal with 3AM starts and 4 hours of sleep a night. September/October are better but weather can be an issue.

I would agree with those problems if I was going there specifically for photography and capturing the best light and environment. In my case I was not looking for that. I probably took 12-14K photos during the two weeks with two camera bodies and a bunch of lenses but my goals weren't the same as yours.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
The trip I took was very unplanned. Each day we'd look at the map and estimate where we wanted to go and while on the way there the passenger in the car would call around looking for a place to stay in the given area. I went in middle of August which was pretty hot. The weather was interesting but mostly fine for the places we visited.

I pretty much did the same thing during my trip in April 2015. Zero planning. We are doing the same thing this year. Of course we rolled into Zion at 9pm and it was in April, plus it rained a bit before so some of the campgrounds emptied out into motels. We had to go to or call about 5-6 hotels before we found one. We should have less trouble this time of year.

In my previous post I said that Bryce was my favorite park and that was not correct. I meant to say Zion was my favorite. I remember there being a big ole tree in front of one of the lodges that lots of people were just laying in the grass under it. We did the same and took a nap while laying on our backpacks. It was one of my fondest memories. I also liked that they paved the roads a natural red color to match the scenery. The busses that take you through the park were all natural gas so no extra smelly distractions. I really felt like they paid attention to the details to keep you in the theme of the park.

At the start of the trip we bought the annual park pass at the first park and more than recouped the fees from all the parks we visited. Well worth investing in it and I really think the national park service is fantastic in the US.

I know that tree. Lots of people kicking it under the tree. Taking naps like you said, having lunch, relaxing while rug-rats run around, etc, etc. I don't know what type of tree it is, but it was shedding something "dandelion-like" in the light breeze. Not enough to be bothersome, but laying there and looking up is was dream-like. Very relaxing.

I've been to Zion maybe 15-20 times. A bunch with my pop when I was a kid, and later right after high school for several years. Lots of nice long/hard multi-hour day hikes. Plus hikes up the Narrows.

Man I wish Zion was like it was in the early 1980's to maybe early/mid 1990's. Nobody knew that park even existed. NOBODY. They used to have two campgrounds. I don't remember ever seeing that second campground open. You could drive all the way up canyon yourself. And there was always plenty of parking at every stop. No fancy visitors center. Self-serve camp ground. You put your $3/night in a small envelope and put in drop box at entrance. Pick your own site. Deserted most of year. The town outside the park had maybe 2-3 restaurant and 2 motels. It's really commercial now. Crazy number of people. Can't drive up canyon. Campground packed. It's kinda funny that the lodge and concessions contract is with a Vietnamese group/family. I have no issue with the ethnicity, just funny an all Vietnamese crew in the middle of Utah.

And yeah, the $80 annual pass pays for itself pretty quickly. A must, as entrance fees are $15?-30? a pop at the parks

I just finished watching this documentary series. Worth watching before you trip.

Thanks for the tip.

I've been to those places, but altogether a period of about 6 months and >100,000 frames.
One of the main problems is trying to do too much on each trip. Just to get good light sometimes you can only visit a few in a week.
May/June can be brutal with 3AM starts and 4 hours of sleep a night. September/October are better but weather can be an issue.

True. You really need to spend several days if not a week+ for some of the parks if you want to have good lighting at all the interesting parts. Sometimes very early A.M. is best, or late afternoon.

Primary goals:
1) Re-friggen-lax and enjoy ourselves.
2) See some cool spots we've never seen before.
3) Try to take some semi-decent photos.
3a) Try not to look like a couple of douches with $9k+ in camera gear.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
I would agree with those problems if I was going there specifically for photography and capturing the best light and environment. In my case I was not looking for that. I probably took 12-14K photos during the two weeks with two camera bodies and a bunch of lenses but my goals weren't the same as yours.

This.

However, I wish I had the time, and MONEY, to just go to Zion for 2 weeks and just take pics. During OFF season.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,692
Location
USA
Man I wish Zion was like it was in the early 1980's to maybe early/mid 1990's. Nobody knew that park even existed. NOBODY. They used to have two campgrounds. I don't remember ever seeing that second campground open. You could drive all the way up canyon yourself. And there was always plenty of parking at every stop. No fancy visitors center. Self-serve camp ground. You put your $3/night in a small envelope and put in drop box at entrance. Pick your own site. Deserted most of year. The town outside the park had maybe 2-3 restaurant and 2 motels. It's really commercial now. Crazy number of people. Can't drive up canyon. Campground packed. It's kinda funny that the lodge and concessions contract is with a Vietnamese group/family. I have no issue with the ethnicity, just funny an all Vietnamese crew in the middle of Utah.

And yeah, the $80 annual pass pays for itself pretty quickly. A must, as entrance fees are $15?-30? a pop at the parks



Thanks for the tip.

True. You really need to spend several days if not a week+ for some of the parks if you want to have good lighting at all the interesting parts. Sometimes very early A.M. is best, or late afternoon.

Primary goals:
1) Re-friggen-lax and enjoy ourselves.
2) See some cool spots we've never seen before.
3) Try to take some semi-decent photos.
3a) Try not to look like a couple of douches with $9k+ in camera gear.

Physical activity is mental relaxation, or at least that was what the mental trainer dudes were saying to our teams in 90s.
I've taken enough bad photos in the old days to not have any interest in that now. If the weather or time of day is bad I scout around for future opportunities.

IIRC 1999 was the last year for self-driving in the canyon part. I've been there a few times since, but it's too crowded and the buses are limited. There are some other good parts outside of the main canyon drive. The Kolab section is far away, but nice for an afternoon if it is on your route.
 
Last edited:

blakerwry

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Oct 12, 2002
Messages
4,203
Location
Kansas City, USA
Website
justblake.com
No, only 99%.

Not sure if this comment was meant in jest, but that's a lesson that I was taught: Know in advance that the majority of your photos will be average, some poor, and some good. Occasionally you'll get a spectacular gem. The take away for me was to take more photos to increase the likelihood of getting a gem. This is especially true with digital where taking a photo has little/no expense. While taking 10x more photos doesn't mean 10x more gems, it does increase the number in my experience.

Training, practice, and deliberate thought will help improve one's average photo quality, which should help reduce the number of stinkers and otherwise missed opportunities.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
Not sure if this comment was meant in jest, but that's a lesson that I was taught: Know in advance that the majority of your photos will be average, some poor, and some good. Occasionally you'll get a spectacular gem. The take away for me was to take more photos to increase the likelihood of getting a gem.

I very much agree with you on this.

For me it's something like 90% delete. 6% kinda interesting/decent/touristy, but, delete. 3.8% good, but needs work, could have been improved by doing X,Y,Z, keep for now. And finally, 0.2% are actually very-good to great but needs post-processing work that I haven't gotten started with yet.

This is especially true with digital where taking a photo has little/no expense. While taking 10x more photos doesn't mean 10x more gems, it does increase the number in my experience.

Training, practice, and deliberate thought will help improve one's average photo quality, which should help reduce the number of stinkers and otherwise missed opportunities.

98% of my "photo experience" comes from my film days that were from approx 1983-1992 (SLR) & 1992-2015 (P&S). My friend's experience is about the same. When we got back into photography in 2015 with my current DSLR during our Zion/Bryce trip last year we were still in "film shooting mode." We were thinking, can't shoot X or Y or Z because it wouldn't work well in film era. Or spend time trying to find that one perfect composition instead of taking 2, 3, 20 different shots of same subject and experimenting with composition. Basically in the, "we only have 36 exposures so we have to make them count" mode.

Now I'm not saying, "don't think about what you are shooting." More along the lines of don't "way overthink" everything, or worry about little "technical issues" that can be fixed in post. If you get my meaning.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
The new Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8E is available for pre-order. Holy crap $2800.

Only $850 more expensive than the Canon EF 70-200/2.8 II lens.

MTF G version. {scroll down a bit}
MTF E version. {scroll down a bit}

The new E version does look like it will be sharper than the older G version.

...and...

"Compared to the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II, minimum focus distance throughout the entire zoom range is reduced from 1.4 m to 1.1 m, and maximum reproduction ratio increased from 0.11x to 0.21x"

... It looks like Nikon "fixed" the focus breathing problem of the G version.

But jebus christ, $2800 friggen bucks for a 70-200/2.8. That is some crazy "early buyers tax." The pricing on the E version 70-200 makes the $3400 for the new Nikkor 19mm f/4 TS-E look cheap.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,692
Location
USA
The new Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8E is available for pre-order. Holy crap $2800.

Only $850 more expensive than the Canon EF 70-200/2.8 II lens.

MTF G version. {scroll down a bit}
MTF E version. {scroll down a bit}

The new E version does look like it will be sharper than the older G version.

...and...

"Compared to the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II, minimum focus distance throughout the entire zoom range is reduced from 1.4 m to 1.1 m, and maximum reproduction ratio increased from 0.11x to 0.21x"

... It looks like Nikon "fixed" the focus breathing problem of the G version.

But jebus christ, $2800 friggen bucks for a 70-200/2.8. That is some crazy "early buyers tax." The pricing on the E version 70-200 makes the $3400 for the new Nikkor 19mm f/4 TS-E look cheap.

The Canon 70-200 was initially $2200. I rarely use it, but don't need the speed for sports as some people do.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,692
Location
USA
Actually there are three components, but I'm ordering the one piece bracket.
I may have to leave the country in about two weeks.

CBH
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,692
Location
USA
The 16-35 II is looking really good according to the Cicala. Of course I already have 4 other 16-35s. :(
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
The 16-35 II is looking really good according to the Cicala. Of course I already have 4 other 16-35s. :(

Bad link again Lunar?

Roger's EF 16-35/2.8 III test results here. The III blows away the II version. The III is even better than the f/4 16-35 but not by enough to justify the increased price, unless, you NEED f/2.8. The 24-70/2.8 II is a bit sharper in the center at 24mm, but once you get 8mm from center of frame the 16-35 III is sharper.

Only real negative for the lens is the 4 stops of vignetting in the extreme corners at 16mm wide open.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,692
Location
USA
Bad link again Lunar?

Roger's EF 16-35/2.8 III test results here. The III blows away the II version. The III is even better than the f/4 16-35 but not by enough to justify the increased price, unless, you NEED f/2.8. The 24-70/2.8 II is a bit sharper in the center at 24mm, but once you get 8mm from center of frame the 16-35 III is sharper.

Only real negative for the lens is the 4 stops of vignetting in the extreme corners at 16mm wide open.

I expect is it still better than the f/4 IS at f/8 but of course it has no IS. Realistically I should be saving for the 11-24 and use that for the serious landscapes. The 16-35/4 IS would be more for the times I'm using teles as well.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
I expect is it still better than the f/4 IS at f/8 but of course it has no IS. Realistically I should be saving for the 11-24 and use that for the serious landscapes. The 16-35/4 IS would be more for the times I'm using teles as well.

Of course I already have 4 other 16-35s. :(

Um, I don't know, perhaps, maybe, sell 1 or 2 of you 16-35 (or some of your 100-400) and use proceeds to help pay for 11-24? Just a thought. Do you still need multiple copies of the same lens?
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
My rental D500 and 14-24 lens came in today. Very well packaged. Lens wrapped in bubble wrap and inside padded lens bag. Inside a padded camera bag. Inside a cardboard box with foam insert on all six sides of box. Took me about 30 mins to figure out how to set Raw+JPG to both card slots. Seems the Raw+JPG was on the bottom of the non-obvious menu box that I didn't scroll down far enough to find.

Quick questions: Do higher end camera under-expose by default? Or are they correct, and my D610 is simply overexposing? Straight out of Camera JPGs from the D500 look dark.

Should I set my D610 to underexpose 1/2 or 2/3 stop to match the D500 SooC JPGs? Or leave settings as is on D610.

Thanks.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,692
Location
USA
My rental D500 and 14-24 lens came in today. Very well packaged. Lens wrapped in bubble wrap and inside padded lens bag. Inside a padded camera bag. Inside a cardboard box with foam insert on all six sides of box. Took me about 30 mins to figure out how to set Raw+JPG to both card slots. Seems the Raw+JPG was on the bottom of the non-obvious menu box that I didn't scroll down far enough to find.

Quick questions: Do higher end camera under-expose by default? Or are they correct, and my D610 is simply overexposing? Straight out of Camera JPGs from the D500 look dark.

Should I set my D610 to underexpose 1/2 or 2/3 stop to match the D500 SooC JPGs? Or leave settings as is on D610.

Thanks.

What do you mean by underexpose? Is the histogram on the back not matching the computer RAW files or when you use usual judgment for exposure it is not what you expect?
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
What do you mean by underexpose? Is the histogram on the back not matching the computer RAW files or when you use usual judgment for exposure it is not what you expect?

I'm not looking at the histogram. Some JPGs just look a bit dark. Maybe I'm imagining things. I did a quick google and seems others are noticing "under exposed" images using the D500. Probably nothing to worry about.

Any yeah, the buffer is not 200 frames on the D500. More like 35 frames. At least when writing Raw+JPG to both card slots. This XQD and this SD card. The SD card is 1/4th the rated speed of the XQD card so that's probably the cause. I wonder if the D500 can utilize these 300 MB/s SD cards? My D610 only has a 10-12 frame buffer when writing Raw+JPG to both SD Extreme Pro cards.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,692
Location
USA
I'm not looking at the histogram. Some JPGs just look a bit dark. Maybe I'm imagining things. I did a quick google and seems others are noticing "under exposed" images using the D500. Probably nothing to worry about.

What exposure modes and metering modes are you using?
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,692
Location
USA
The D500 takes full advantage of UHS-II cards. However, writing both RAW and JPEG to both cards is a bit much. The usual procedure is to write JPEG to the slower card and RAW to the faster card.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,692
Location
USA
It will be very close. I'll miss it if not in the first shipment.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,692
Location
USA
No but there will be. Gap since I would have to use the 24-70/4.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,668
Back from my road trip. Dead tired and a bit sore and sun burned.

This was the route we took. Started from Surprise and not downtown Phoenix, but you get the idea. Stopped at Petrified Forest NP, four corners, Mesa Verde NP, Arches NP, Capitol Reef NP and Natural Bridges National Monument. Didn't go to Canyon Lands NP as there are no motels anywhere near the park. Also the park is split into two pieces and you have to go out, and around to get to other part.

And, due to my stellar good luck and fortune, I managed to damage my rental camera. Sigh.

More pics and info to come during the next week. I need to sleep about 12 hours straight.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,692
Location
USA
Back from my road trip. Dead tired and a bit sore and sun burned.

This was the route we took. Started from Surprise and not downtown Phoenix, but you get the idea. Stopped at Petrified Forest NP, four corners, Mesa Verde NP, Arches NP, Capitol Reef NP and Natural Bridges National Monument. Didn't go to Canyon Lands NP as there are no motels anywhere near the park. Also the park is split into two pieces and you have to go out, and around to get to other part.

And, due to my stellar good luck and fortune, I managed to damage my rental camera. Sigh.

More pics and info to come during the next week. I need to sleep about 12 hours straight.

LensCap+ should cover most damage. Was it caused by a tipped tripod?
 
Last edited:
Top