Actually, because I am not as young as I used to be, I have a Benro - Classic C3580F 4-Section Carbon Fiber Tripod, on the way from B & H, and will use my Manfrotto 393 Heavy Duty Gimbal Type Telephoto Lens Support on it. This head is nice and it has weight as well, but when all is balanced, the lens, camera, head just float on the legs. The advantage for the old folks is sometimes we like to just let go and have the twenty plus pounds on the tripod stay where it is. The tripod is rated for nearly 40 pounds. I use the RC-3 mount which gives a lot of fore and aft range for balancing the unit. Even though it is heavy to carry around, once set up I love it.
This should be interesting to see if I get results as good as I am hoping for. With the D4 this might be a nice combo, and the 1.4 teleconverter allows a slightly shorter set up. In the other hand, a body, possibly D90 or new D800, with the 70-200 to cover things which get close.

Ms. Tommie Lauer

Sticking to the Primary subject, I have used both the MK11 and Mk111 Converter with a 300mm 2.8 prime lens. The improvement with the Mk111 is worlds apart. Anybody considering changing up to Mk111 converter, is just do it , if you can get one !

On the 400mm I would image you really do need a substantial tripod to get the best results . Its OK for the people who live on the Bright and Sunny side of the pond, Us Brits do get the occasional sunny day, but the odds on, this is when you don't have the lens with you

Gee whiz.... I think I agree.... no links seems to be best. Just look at my profile and go to my website which has over 700 pages and thousands of photos in the main photo section and photo archives.

Ms. Tommie Lauer

I know we get off topic but dang - I'm going to need a 400mm with a 2x tele to find a way back now. :)

I don't think links should be allowed. The negatives outweigh the positives by way too much.

tcole1983: Good thoughts on the subject. We all want to be protected.

adamz: I dind't know people could link their website to their profile. That is a good solution to the issue. I just checked your website. Nice photos.

@donaldejose I have tried to stay out of it, but you seem adamant about the topic even after the mods said to just write them if you were concerned about the issue.

Notice my post 3rd reply to this thread. What does it look like when it is someone's first post and the person links their personal website...spam. Just like 99% of the spammer posts. Removing the links has been that way since I have been here and I personally like it. I don't have to worry about clicking on some link to a virus or some spammers link that makes them money. Lets say you allow the OP to post their website then why not the next person or the next? If you like a persons pictures then PM them about them or as the admin said click on their profiles and go from there. Add them as a contact on flickr or something if you want to view other pictures by them.

@donaldejose - once You click on someones's profile and that person filled the web site field You may be able to go to that webpage.

I guess it is our different use of the phrase "commercial advertisement" that has caused the difficulty. I think of "commercial advertisement" as a website for a store selling stuff, like amazon.com, etc. or a photography studio website. I guess you define "commercial advertisement" to include someone's personal website whether of not that site is their business site. It seems to me that if it is not a business site it shouldn't fall under the "commercial advertisement" category. In other words, people should be allowed to link to a portfolio of their work beyond just posting a photo of the day. I would like to see more personal portfolios of people who post here.

@donalddejose - as to follow rule: "6. Spam / Commercial advertisement is not allowed. Very simple rule - accounts will be deleted without notice, no exceptions.", me and other mods remove links to this what we this is an obvious or potential commercial, especially from new users. You may like it or not, it's only up to You. This topic was discussed previously and that's the set of rules we all agreed some time ago. You can believe me or not, but neither me, JA or Niko never got a penny from this site - our work is for free as is the contents of this page, OTOH (knowing from my own experience) internet providers doesn't do this for free and running server costs. Moreover, if You would look closely neither one of the mods ever deleted a single link that was posted by older member and was related to news, additional info, etc. and trust me, there's many ppl over here who shoot pictures, have their websites (including me), and who don't advertise their work.
Anyway, as squamish mentioned if You have a problem with understanding the rules PM either me, JA or admin.

SquamishPhoto said:
PM the admins if you have concerns, donald.

Rinse and repeat.

SwuamishPhoto: I have checked the FAQ and it only says span/commercial advertisement are not allowed. It does not say all links will be automatically removed. I am asking for a public statement justifying what seems to be a knee-jerk automatic link removal policy which explains why it is not done solely in the interest of NR corporate sponsors. Why is the policy not just a selfish policy which does not serve the readership? If NR is concerned there could be something "bad" in a posted link and they are "protecting" us from that possibility, there is a less invasive alternative. NR Admin can just check the link first and remove any "bad" links which violate NR policy, but leave the others intact. msmoto's link was removed and she claims it just contained her personal photos, no advertising and nothing for sale. NR, did you check out her link before removing it? If her representations about that link are true what justification does NR have in removing it according to the posted FAQ for this forum? Seems to me this is a pretty simple question.

PM the admins if you have concerns, donald.

If this website was more concerned about serving the interests of its readers rather than serving the interests of its company supporters this site would not remove links readers post to other sites. It can serve the interests of the readership to follow links to other websites containing examples or information. Links are a type of helpful comment. Removing such links shows that NR places serving the commercial interests of corporate supporters over serving the interests of its readership. It doesn't matter to the readership if the other website is commercial or not. It only matters to NR so NR doesn't irritate their corporate sponsors.

Look NR, a lot of readers spend a lot of time creating and posting free content for you. The least you can do for us is to not remove links to other websites which may interest us. NR should stop putting its commercial interests ahead of the interests of its readers or the readers should stop providing free content to NR. Let's be fair here.

NR can you explain to the readership why you find it necessary to remove links other than to server the financial interest of yourself and your corporate sponsors?

Thank you for the support. The facts of the matter are that I have returned to the photographer side of me in the past few years and have just begun to gather in equipment. So, the D200, D90 are good equipment, but as I was dreaming the D4 would be here last August, I had been waiting for nearly a year to grab one. We all know the tragic conditions in Japan, so I must just wait and see what comes down the pike. The D4 will be my primary camera, and what they do for a "semi-pro" camera, i.e., D800 or whatever FX, this may have to be included.

Putting up a photo on my website five days a week requires a lot of shooting to keep it interesting. For those interested, send a PM and I will respond with a link which will take you to some photos with the 400mm+2x converter at a charity event I covered, at no cost as usual, and the photos show the effect I wanted to compress the walking crowd and make it appear a lot of folks were there... which was the case. The event was the "Winter Walk for AIDS" to raise money for Triad Health Project.

Now if I have violated the rules of the forum by this post.... I am confused. The website generates no money. It is simply to encourage the practice of unconditional love.

Thanks, Ms. Tommie Lauer

to support msmoto - d90 is/was a great camera, IMHO the best money value camera in the whole Nikon lineup - more than enough for shooting most of the wildlife snaps (my case), sure it's not as fast nor sensitive as d3s but IMHO it handles better than d300s (especially considering the price difference).

Great comments. I think I will eventually use a separate monopod under the camera body, about 3-5 lbs of bean bags on the body and over the lens, shoot at 1/1000, f 8 or f11, and set the lens on "Tripod" VR mode. However, I am planning on some city night shots and will stop down so I get an exposure in the 1/2 second range, then using a black velvet covered screen in front of the lens, open on "B" and rotate the screen out of the way for half second, absolutely no vibration this way. Just like shooting 8 x 10 color transparency material in the old days.

I love these tech challenges. The goal of shooting the long, long lens during the daytime is to get into the cockpit of some of the race cars I shoot. I shoot as an amateur at most venues, so no close viewpoints generally speaking.

We will just see how all this works.

now when is that D4 coming?

Ms. Tommie Fantine Lauer

i use the tc-20eiii on my 300 2.8. you need to stop it down to F8 for it to be sharp, other than that, what are you trying to shoot?

a monopod is helpful.

if i had the 400 i wouldn't be putting the tc on unless i couldn't walk in closer.

you get better bokeh using a full frame camera as you are closer to the subject when framing the same shot.

1200mm @5.6 with VR - Dang that is called covering some ground! There is nothing Faster than what you have.

I'm with Mike - I think she is talking about perspective compression as well.

DX - I've seen birders and some wildlife shooters do this. Part of the reason I'm not sure if I want to move off of DX as well.

Experience - I have never done a 400, but 300mm yes. With VR and a tripod I would stop it down to F8, auto ISO, Spot meter it and try to keep the shutter above 1/750. Exposure comp about -.7 to -1.3. Sharpness wins over iso any day in my book.

With VR I tend to go with a shutter that is smidgen under the focal length for DX to get decent shots. 1/2 a stop over the DX focal length to get better shot to toss ratio. With a 2x, depending what you are shooting, I try to go with the DX focal length at that distance if you can.

If you are doing landscape type shooting, stop it down to offset the converter (F5.6-f11 actual) and Lock the head tight, weigh the tripod down, Mirror lock up, remote shutter release, ISO 200, and take a shot at whatever the shutter is. Fire off at least 10-15 of each shot to hopefully get one without any shake into it. Keep the VR on as these lenses are designed for VR shooting on tripods. Consumer level one's are not. Take it slow, maybe 30-1 min between shots to take any vibration out.

I have never shot at 1200mm so maybe the compensation goes exponentially higher but that's what I follow.

Should be able to get some fantastic Full moons (that is huge in the shot) with landscapes. That would be a fun setup to play with!

Hi Guys and gals,

I am actually waiting for the D4. My suspicion is the D800 will have so many pixels it may not have the ISO capability. Oh, FYI, I have a D200 as well, and two F bodies from the early 1960's An early Photomic which never did meter well and a Silver F body. A bunch of those old lenses as well.

And yes, the 70-200 VRII works extremely well with the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. The cars on my website are usually shot at 1/800th with an ISO to allow a stop or two down from wide open 400 or 800. I think with the 400mm and the 2x, the 1/1000 or more may be necessary simply because of the magnification. A mistake I think I have made on some early shots is to not press the release down and "follow" the subject before completing the exposure.

As for the website *LINK REMOVED*, everything is available without charge. You just cannot sell it. I will send a large file to anyone who would like it. And if you take the time to read what Carbear, Ferdie, and Dawg have to say over a period of time, you may see things differently.

But, the real question is, what experience does the group have with the 400/2.0X combo?

Thanks for responding, Ms. Tommie Lauer *LINK REMOVED*

Mike Gunter said:
Maybe she's waiting for the D800?

Mike... You made my day with that!!!

:)

Hi all,

7C's comments are right on target.

Ms M's shares her shots and doesn't accept compensation - it isn't a commercial site.

I think by 'foreshortening' she means the perspective compression when using a telephoto lens.

As for the 'mix/mash' of camera/lens, she's pretty happy with the D90, and who wouldn't be? ;-)

Maybe she's waiting for the D800?

My best,

Mike

NSXType-R said:
What is foreshortening?

Huh? You mean you don't know?

Compression of objects with distance in longer focal lengths is what most of us think of as foreshortening but that's not quite correct. Its more properly a distortion in perspective, when an artist is trying to represent depth over distance, but that's not how we all use the term these days.

Oh ok. It IS the weekend.... ;-)

NSXType-R said:
Well she does have a link to her site, which NikoDoby would usually not allow.

Guys,

Chill... The O.P. appears not not be a spammer, but that message is written using the same "untrained voice" as she uses on her web sites, meaning I wonder from the split infinitives and overall phrasing etc, if Mrs. Lauer (no offense meant) might not be a native English speaker?

I like some of the "Grampapapalooza" portraits. When you get close in (and also not using the teleconverter), the images really do begin to pop. Lots of detail on those wrinkly faces and more than a few good observations of personalities too.

Well she does have a link to her site, which NikoDoby would usually not allow.

I assume this is spam? You shoot a $10000 lens on a D90?

Guess not...just seemed out of place for a first post. My bad :)