Elinchrom users only- whatcha got? (Mark II)

tetrode wrote in post #12638698
What the well-dressed Nikon shooter is wearing these days, Mic:

Dave F.

Dave, how are you liking the 105 Micro? Thinking about picking one up.

Harleypugs wrote in post #12638761
Got bored last night....

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/harleypugs/5859​888179/
_MG_1982 by battlefloydflyer, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/harleypugs/5859​887757/
_MG_1963 by battlefloydflyer, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/harleypugs/5859​888069/
_MG_1981 by battlefloydflyer, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/harleypugs/5860​440826/
_MG_1988 by battlefloydflyer, on Flickr

Great product shot! That should be in a magazine...

tetrode wrote in post #12638698
What the well-dressed Nikon shooter is wearing these days, Mic:

Dave F.

Just noticed your D3 is powered on, its happened to me to forget the camera powered on in the case, i might not be the only one

tetrode wrote in post #12638698
What the well-dressed Nikon shooter is wearing these days, Mic:



Dave F.

Impressive kit. My dream Canon kit is 1DIV, 24II, 24-105, Sigma 50 1.4, 70-200 II and SIgma 120-300 OS.

Lichtwerk wrote in post #12639497
Dave, how are you liking the 105 Micro? Thinking about picking one up.

Hi, Dennis;

I like it very much. It's very sharp, focuses quickly (for an AF macro lens), and VR is a nice feature to have on occasion. That said, just between the two of us, I actually preferred the previous "D" version. The 105mm f/2.8D Micro Nikkor is optically just as good (and, possibly, a bit better wide open according to Thom Hogan) but is much smaller and easier to handle than the "G" version. It also takes nice, small 52mm filters (like all Nikkors of yore). AF on the older lens relies on the mechanical screwdriver mechanism so it can't AF on bodies without focusing motors.

For purely macro use, either the D or G versions of the 105mm are excellent. What the G version brings to the table is faster AF and VR which makes it a better tool for a wider variety of applications. Of course, it also brings a significantly higher price. Price aside, if you'd be using the lens for things other than pure macro shooting, I'd say get it. It's a very flexible, sharp optic. For purely macro shooting, I'd say forget them both and look for a 125mm Apo-Lanthar or 100mm Zeiss Makro-Planar.

Dave F.

My Basement/Studio project is going on strong, and yesterday I added another tool... a DIY tri-flector, three foam bords taped together and glued to it, a silver gift wrapping paper.
it came out good but it's difficult using it on kids... they don't sit still and so you can't get that perfect catch-light.

Here are some samples that i tested as soon as i finished creating the reflector...
1Ds Mark III, 70-200 f2.8L II, and using a single Digital style 600rx on a BD.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

All right, I can finally contribute around here.

(OT for a moment: Yea!!!!!! Adorama has shipped my Mola Setti. )

(OT for another moment: Booooo, I'm still waiting for the speedring. )

Now on to the darkside. Take what I say with a grain of salt as I suck as a shooter.

I owned Nikon. The very same D3 you see in the bag. It was a nice camera, nothing special. The D3s is quite a bit better. Dave, I expect you to replace that antique forthwith

I owned the 200-400. Hopefully the version II is better. It wasn't the quickest focusing lens I've ever had, and was extremely awkward to handhold, quite front heavy.

The 24-70 is amazing, plain and simple, but it should be considering when it came out it was hundreds more than its Canon counterpart, the Brick, and when you get a good matched Brick, there's little difference.

The 14-24 is not exactly the wow everybody makes it out to be. Yes, in comparison to the 16-35 it walks all over it like Johnny Cash on blue suede shoes. (or was that Jerry Lee whoever? :lol

The 105 micro is a good lens, but let's not forget a well kept secret. When one focuses close, 1:1, it is no longer a constant aperture and actually stops itself down to 3.2 or so, from my memory. It's by design. The Canon does not. The VR on both stinks for macro.

The SB800 is a great flash. I still have one. Though it's crippled by its inability to swivel its head like Linda Blair in the Exorcist.

The original 70-200 as shown is a dog unless you're shooting crop. The sides and corners are soft, soft, soft, no matter how far you stop down.

I had both, that and the newer version which was a huge step-up in quality.

I'll take the 5th and exercise my right to remain silent on the 50-135 as I never hoid of it.

Gadzooks, what bag holds all that stuff? That must weigh a ton.

me

tetrode wrote in post #12638698
What the well-dressed Nikon shooter is wearing these days, Mic:

Dave F.

MDJAK wrote in post #12641563
Gadzooks, what bag holds all that stuff? That must weigh a ton.

Looks like a ThinkTank of some description. I've got an Airport Security 2.0 (looks exactly like this) and it's the best bag I've ever owned. (I had a Lowepro Computrekker AW+ roller (or something) for my cameras, but it how holds my Quadras. The ThinkTank is light years ahead of it in every way.)

MDJAK wrote in post #12641563
...

I owned Nikon. The very same D3 you see in the bag. It was a nice camera, nothing special. The D3s is quite a bit better. Dave, I expect you to replace that antique forthwith

Gotta disagree, Mark. The D3 was and is very special. The D3S is an evolutionary step with somewhat better high ISO performance. That's very much a "so what" incremental improvement for me. I rarely venture about 1250 and the D3 is stellar at that ISO. Ergonomics are superb, dual CF card slots, 10fps, and an excellent sensor. I'll consider the D4 and/or D800 once Nikon wakes up and offers them.

How can you be so wrong? The 400mm f/3.5 Ai-S was front heavy (had one). The 200mm f/2 AF-S is front heavy (have one). The 400mm f.2.8 AF-S is super front heavy (yes, I have one). For its size and zoom range, the 200-400/4 is extremely well balanced (shot with it today, in fact). AF could be faster but is very good. To quote Thom Hogan "I've used this lens on both static and fast moving subjects, and I'm always surprised at how fast the lens can snap in focus on the latter (assuming the camera is up to it). Basically, I have no issues with the focus performance." The lens is sharp as can be throughout the range. How does it compare to the Canon equivalent? Oh? They don't?

I had a good copy of "the brick" and dumped it as soon as I got the Nikon. No comparison. None.

If it isn't, why does everybody make it out to be a wow? It's a "wow" alright.

Like every other 1:1 focusing macro lens, effective aperture of the Canon 100L drops by 2 stops at minimum focusing distance. The Nikon 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor-P had a compensating diaphragm that opened progressively as the lens was focused closer. In any case, loss of effective aperture is only meaningful at close focusing distances where one would be shooting well stopped down.

Quite the gift for overstatement you have, Mark. The v1 70-200 is far from a dog. Don't take my word for it; ask Joe McNally. It's very sharp in the center on a FF DSLR though it does get a bit soft at the frame periphery. I certainly never found it to be "soft, soft, soft". I would be only too happy to upgrade to the V2 70-200 and plan to do so as soon as I hit Lotto.

The 50-135 is a Nikon classic; a stellar performer. It's a favorite of landscape photographer John Shaw and many others.

It's a Think Tank Airport Acceleration. It probably does weigh a ton; I wouldn't know, I can't lift it.

Dave F.

Now now, boys.

We ain't fighting. Disagreement is what makes the world go around and makes this interesting. As Dave points to people such as Joe McNally, whom I have tremendous respect for, having met him 3 times, attended 3 of his "talks" at Adorama, I too can quote reviews where the 70-200 was slammed on its corner and side softness no mater what aperture one stops down to.

If one looks for reviews, which I don't have time to do now on the 14-24, one will see at 14 it is great, At 24, not so much. No filter, though there is some jury-rig that can be done to take care of that. Not that I use filters much though. I'm too dumb to figure out the ND that I bought. Robert?????

I too had the Nikon 200 f2 VR. I disliked it immensely. It handled poorly. It was so short and stubby it left very little purchase for one's hand, except for if you dared touch or brush against the focus ring, it would immediately go into manual and you'd lose focus. That's why they replaced it.

If the 200-400 was so good, why did they replace it? Because Nikon's original VR is terrible. Don't forget (how could you forget, you never knew ) I was an original Nikon shooter.

Until I tried the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS versus the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR. The VR paled in comparison. In fact, their VRII is still not as good.

When I placed the 1.7 TC on the 200-400, it could not track my son's then girlfriend walking, not running, walking toward it, on the D3.

The D3 tended to lose focus, sometimes not even try to regain it.

After owning the 1DsMKII, and then the 1DsMKIII, I sold both and got the 1DMKIII. When that piece of crap couldn't focus worth a damn, is when I dumped Canon and returned to Nikon.

After being very disappointed in most of their lens lineup (oh, and should Canon ever put up or shut up, they will one day have the 200-400 with built in teleconverter as you know, so that point will be moot.) I switched back to Canon.

Yeah, nothing is perfect. My original brick was horrible. I took pictures of my daughter standing in front of beautiful flowers at Pepsico. About 6 pictures. All were soft. I wanted to scream.

The brick I have now is perfect. It was sent to Canon and mated with the 5DII. I have no idea what they did, whether it was voodoo or not, but it doesn't get any better. I defy anyone's ability to tell the difference.

And Robert, Dave knows I love him. He, and you, have helped me immensely around here. I ain't putting his stuff down. I'm just recounting one man's experience with a lot of the equipment in his bag.

People swear by the 85L. I owned the I and II, both were soft at 1.2. Others get great results.

I didn't get great results with the 200-400. The gentleman I sold it to took it to Yellowstone and his pics blew my socks off.

Now back to My Mola Setti which will be here any day. And when will the speed ring arrive?

MDJAK wrote in post #12642174
Now back to My Mola Setti which will be here any day. And when will the speed ring arrive?

Speaking of differences in opinion, I was unpacking some (gulp) alien bees in the garage yesterday, and one of my brother's dogs sniffed the setti that was sitting on the floor and was about to pee on it. I love the friggin thing, but the dog....not so much. LOL

Did you get the white or silver? I picked up the white used, so I'm not picky, but I think I prefer the silver.

Going Baroque wrote in post #12642226
Speaking of differences in opinion, I was unpacking some (gulp) alien bees in the garage yesterday, and one of my brother's dogs sniffed the setti that was sitting on the floor and was about to pee on it. I love the friggin thing, but the dog....not so much. LOL

Two targets of opportunity, and the dog comprehensively picked the wrong one there...

mickeyjuice wrote in post #12642274
Two targets of opportunity, and the dog comprehensively picked the wrong one there...

hahahhahahahahha +1

mickeyjuice wrote in post #12642274
Two targets of opportunity, and the dog comprehensively picked the wrong one there...

Do you have some kind of bot running in the background that gooses you whenever the word "bee" appears in a post, Mic?

Dave F.