Elinchrom users only- whatcha got? (Mark II)

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

Congrats on the Setti! That's quite the dish.

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

Ha! LOL!

tetrode wrote in post #12642334
Do you have some kind of bot running in the background that gooses you whenever the word "bee" appears in a post, Mic?

Yup. I call them "eyes".

MDJAK wrote in post #12642174
...
If the 200-400 was so good, why did they replace it? ...

To quote Thom Hogan again:

"In April 2010 Nikon introduced a new version of the 200-400mm. The primary changes for this new version were Nano coating, bringing the VR up to Nikon's new four-stop, tripod-detecting standard, plus the addition of the A/M focus mode. We also lost a tiny bit of close focus range and gained a smidgen of weight and nearly 10% in price. But otherwise, optically and physically the lenses are identical.

Optically, the V1 and V2 are identical with the exception of the Nano coating on the V2. Yes, VR was also upgraded. The V1 200-400mm (at 400mm) mounted on my "antique" D3 was used for this image of my recently departed and sorely missed bearded collie Abigail:

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

Or maybe he just has good taste and was claiming it for himself.

Going Baroque wrote in post #12642497
Or maybe he just has good taste and was claiming it for himself.

Or he saw the brand of lights and didn't want to electrocute himself, despite them being unplugged

MDJAK wrote in post #12641563
blablahblablablah

Weird, I don't understand a word of what you're saying

tetrode wrote in post #12641082
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.

Thanks!

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

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

Actually the D3 was something special, Canon didn't have anything comparable when it came out, and they don't have a equal to the D3s in terms of use for sport PJ.

MDJAK wrote in post #12641563
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.

There is no secret that Canon is behind when it comes Pro medium Zooms, Nikon is outperformed by the 24-70/2,8 ZA.

MDJAK wrote in post #12641563
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

I guess it depends on what you shoot, a lens like the 200-400 has little wow factor for me since it's FL i don't use.

However there is no way around the fact that the 14-24/2,8 is by far the best UWA to date.

MDJAK wrote in post #12641563
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.

I belive the Canon does this as well, it's not a secret it's a known fact.

Besides both Canons and Nikon AF macros are *bleh* compared to the VG 125/2,5. In fact id take the Tamron 90/2,8 over both Canon and Nikon any day if i was just after the optical performance.

MDJAK wrote in post #12641563
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.

Both Canon and Nikon flashes are crippled as far as swiveling goes compared to Sony. Canons flashes seems a lot more prone to crap out though, along with the fact it doesn't have a build't in slave.. Nikon simply have the upper hand on everybody with their flashs sytem.

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

The downside with Think Tank backpacks is the fact they can hold more gear then you can carry.

MR do little wrote in post #12643287
The downside with Think Tank backpacks is the fact they can hold more gear then you can carry.

Which is why you get a roller instead.

Lichtwerk wrote in post #12643308
Which is why you get a roller instead.

Yup, i got three of them.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

MR do little wrote in post #12643287
Actually the D3 was something special

Yup. Had a mate who swtched systems to get one, and is still oveer there.

Yup.

Yup.

Yup.

The downside with Think Tank backpacks is the fact they can hold more gear then you can carry.

Yup x 30.

MR do little wrote in post #12643312
Yup, i got three of them.

Nice. I just have the AI v2, but the Logistics Manager seems nice.
Let us have a peek at all the Elinchrom inside, just to keep things on topic of course?

mickeyjuice wrote in post #12642527
Or he saw the brand of lights and didn't want to electrocute himself, despite them being unplugged

Lol, that got a good chuckle out of me.

Even though its technically possible that theres leftover residue in the capacitors and electrocuting yourself with them while being unplugged is entirely possible, seeing a peeing dog get electrocuted because of it just gave me a funny mental image for some reason.

D800 has me lookin, but its still just a silhouette really. Depending on it, i may switch, 5d2 has some downfalls and i imagine them to be similar on the 5d3.

I thought the equivalent to the D3s was the 1d4 ?or the 1d3?

Some cameras may be old, but sensors are like film, some just have a peculiar "je ne sais quoi" for me it was the 1ds2. Something about it, i loved it: ) Its been on my saving up for list for a while, even with the major headaches and problems it gave me, but all my funds went down the drain due to various things breaking.

Wasn't there some sort of D3 buffer upgrade offered ? I'm reading that its gonna be discontinued... that kinda sucks.

Ill try to take a snap later today, now i have to plan how to go thru with commercial shoot in the pouring rain in Stockholm city...

Csae wrote in post #12643339
Even though its technically possible that theres leftover residue in the capacitors and electrocuting yourself with them while being unplugged is entirely possible

I had to ignore that in order to draw that word picture

mickeyjuice wrote in post #12639384
Should I be worried that the two photos in my Flickrstream that get the most faves are of my Ranger and Quadra lighting bags?

Not really, my quick snap with iPod of TT Streetwalker with quadra in it has like 300 views. Everything is gets less views lol

MR do little wrote in post #12643287
The downside with Think Tank backpacks is the fact they can hold more gear then you can carry.

Indeed, last time I packed my bag full it was 16kg :s I now start to consider maybe a rolling bag would do better than a backpack.