I just recently bought D7000 and it's battery grip. Can I put or use 2 batteries at the same time? One in the camera and the other one in the grip? Both batteries are Nikon EN-EL15.
Thank you.
This may sound stupid but....
(13 posts) (7 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
you absolutely can but over time i found it is easier just to use a battery in the grip because taking the grip on and off every time you need to charge the battery in the body is a pain.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not trying to be insulting, but yes to all three. Hence, yes to question 1 & 2, as well as, to the title of your topic.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks!
Posted 1 year ago # -
satellites said:
you absolutely can but over time i found it is easier just to use a battery in the grip because taking the grip on and off every time you need to charge the battery in the body is a pain.That may be true (I don't know, I don't have a D7000), but if it's the same as the D700, you can assign in the menus which battery the camera uses first. I have mine set to use the one in the grip first for that very reason, and only have to unscrew the grip to top up the battery in the camera every month to six weeks.
Posted 1 year ago # -
SkintBrit said:
That may be true (I don't know, I don't have a D7000), but if it's the same as the D700, you can assign in the menus which battery the camera uses first. I have mine set to use the one in the grip first for that very reason, and only have to unscrew the grip to top up the battery in the camera every month to six weeks.i think you can do that...i know i can with my d300s, not sure about my d7000 though...but i get too worried that my grip battery will die and the one in the body will already be nearly dead...id rather just carry two batteries and change one when the other dies. i'd rather not explain to my editor that i didn't get the photos because my battery went dead. i'd soon be out of the job.
on an unrelated note, is there any truth to the rumor that you get a slight jump in FPS by using AA's in the grip on the d7k as opposed to the nikon battery?
Posted 1 year ago # -
As far as I'm aware it's the additional power that's important, not what form that power comes in, although as different batteries have different power outputs, I suppose it could? I like the title of this thread, I can see it being used a lot, here's one for you, I know it does, but I've never heard explained why opening up the aperture on a lens, reduces the depth of field? I'm a guy so I tend to like logical explanations. I can easily understand the logic behind, and the relationship between the amount of light entering the lens, and the shutter speed and/or ISO needed to correctly expose an image, but why opening the aperture should decrease the amount of foreground/background that is in focus I have never got my head round? Anyone explain in layman's terms?
Posted 1 year ago # -
satellites said:
on an unrelated note, is there any truth to the rumor that you get a slight jump in FPS by using AA's in the grip on the d7k as opposed to the nikon battery?That's not true for the D7000. The D700's frame rate gets a boost with AA batteries in the grip, but unfortunately not the D7000. http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3136#post-53647
SkintBrit, here goes. The smaller your aperture, the closer you get to a pinhole camera, so let's take that as a first example. Looking at light as rays and taking a true point for the pinhole, each point of the scene sends only one ray of light that can make it through the pinhole to the sensor and, critically, no other point of the scene can emit a ray of light that hits that point on the sensor. So each part of the scene maps onto one point of the sensor. (In real life, light travels as a wave, so making the aperture smaller eventually begins to make the image fuzzier because of diffraction—the waves actually spread out after making it through the stop. This means there's a tradeoff in pinhole cameras and some optimal pinhole size for sharpness where the ray consideration and the diffraction consideration both give you about the same fuzziness.)
The trouble with a pinhole camera is that being choosy about which rays make it through means you're throwing away all but a small part of the light. This is bad because it means you need a lot of time to expose your sensor.
Enter the lens. Let's take Squamish's 200mm f/2 lens as an (enviable!) example. For a well-designed lens, you can now have a "pinhole" that is wicked huge (<-layman's term). In Squamish's case, 200mm / 2 = 100mm diameter, or a circular hole that is about 4 inches(!) across for those of us still on the silly imperial system.
So let's look at the light from points that lie on one particular slice of the scene that is a.k.a. the focal plane (google "lens equation" if you want to know how to find where it is—in practice you just move the lens closer or further from the sensor by turning the focus ring on the lens until what you want to be in focus is in focus). All of the light that is emitted from a point on the focal plane that passes through any point in this wicked huge hole gets redirected so that it all falls on the same point of the sensor. The tradeoff? If light is emitted from a point that lies on any other plane, it is redirected so that it converges (focuses) either in front of the sensor or behind the sensor. This is what we call "out of focus." (If I were more ambitious, I'd start a conversation on bokeh here, which has to do with how lenses that are equally good at focusing the light from the focal plane can have the out of focus points look different on the sensor.)
Here's the punchline: the smaller you set the aperture, the closer you get to having a pinhole camera, and with a pinhole everything is equally "in focus." The bigger the aperture, the more lensy (<-new layman's term) your camera becomes, which means that more light is collected and also that you don't have to get far from the focal plane to have a light source be noticeably out of focus (non-point-like). Depth of field refers to how far a point can be away from the focal plane and still be considered reasonably in focus, which is complicated and depends on how large the reproduction of your image will be and how far away people will be when they look at it.
Like most things in photography, the limitation on how much of the scene is in focus paradoxically allows for more creativity: in this case, the ability to limit depth of field allows for subject isolation, which is a Good Thing. (BTW, SkintBrit, have you read 1066 and All That? I'm not even British and it gets me laughing until I cry.)
Posted 1 year ago # -
SkintBrit said:
I like the title of this thread, I can see it being used a lot, here's one for you, I know it does, but I've never heard explained why opening up the aperture on a lens, reduces the depth of field? I'm a guy so I tend to like logical explanations. I can easily understand the logic behind, and the relationship between the amount of light entering the lens, and the shutter speed and/or ISO needed to correctly expose an image, but why opening the aperture should decrease the amount of foreground/background that is in focus I have never got my head round? Anyone explain in layman's terms?It is easier to explain using graphics. In the image below you see twice the same situation. Top is open aperture and bottom is closed aperture. The object is not in focus (that is to say it is not in the optimal focus distance), so the really sharp image of the object is in front of the film/sensor plane. In a different situation it could also be behind the film/sensor plane, but the point is, that the focus plane is not in the film/sensor plane.
Now in the open aperture situation the beam of light that creates the image is wide open, so on your film plane you create a large blurry spot. When you close the aperture the angle gets smaller and the spot seems less blurry.
When the size of the spot is smaller than your pixel size you will not see a difference between a perfect focused spot and a slightly blurry one. When you look at an image (printed) from a certain distance you can even tolerate much bigger "blurry" spots before you see them as out of focus. There a different definitions out there about what size this spot becomes out of focus. Just google for "circle of confusion".
Hope this helps and Merry Christmas.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks for the images, Correlli. Great explanation, too.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Awesome post, jonny. Love the new laymen term "lensy". Im gonna use that. :]
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
O.K. guys I've got your replies, thanks so much for taking the time to write them (on Christmas Eve as well), I haven't got time now to digest the info (I'm sorry but first pass didn't make it clear for me), so I'll have a better read after today is out the way, and I'll let you know later if "By golly he's got it" :-)
Thanks guys, HAPPY CHRISTMAS DAY!
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
