Using Nikon still lenses on the EX3

[Paul Cronin]

Steve I am not hand holding a EX3 with a 300mm lens. I am hand holding my EX1 at 3/4 zoom and a lot of the load goes to my shoulder/waist on the rig an the gyros are a HUGE help. I have been using two Kenyon KS-8 gyro rig for years. You can not do it long maybe one hour at a time then I need a break and it is a workout. A EX3 with the 300mm at 35mm equivalent of 1500mm is a NO WAY. Just seeing if anyone has tricks to learn.

And I agree with you a good tripod is a must. I have a Gitzo G1380 with carbon legs for the EX1 and that is max weight for it to be stable. In over 20K of wind well it does not cut it. So thanks for the tripod recommendations since that will also be a upgrade with my next camera.

[Ofer Levy]

Hi Paul and Steve, thank you for your input.
Steve is right and I won't even consider hand holding such a long less. I don't even touch the handle on the fluid head as this introduces vibrations. I use a rubber band to pull the handle when panning and tilting. (Don’t do much of that either.)
I use the Miller CF tripod legs and the Miller Arrow 25 fluid head and I am very happy with the results. The fluid head gives me smooth, vibration free movement even when using the 600mm lens.
In case there is wind I don't think any tripod can help to avoid the vibrations. I am going to try an umbrella mounted on a tripod to block the early morning light wind we sometime get in Sydney.
Paul, I bought the Flash XDR a while ago but I am still not using it on a daily basis as CD are still upgrading the firmware and I would like to have it fully functional for my needs. I am sure others are using it though.
I hope to start using it all the time when they release the new firmware next week. I do believe it is a wonderful device which when coupled with the EX3 will make the ultimate wildlife production setup.
Regarding showing some footage – I am still waiting to know what is the best NLE to work with the footage obtained using the Flash XDR so this will take some more time.

Cheers,

Ofer Levy Nature Photographer

[Paul Cronin]

Thank Ofer. The Miller Arrow 25 Fluid Head looks like great deal if you can use a lens as long at the 600mm and be happy with the results.

I am on the list to receive the XDR Flash in a few weeks. I agree it looks like a great piece of gear.

I like you work.

[Steve Phillipps]

Paul, sorry, I thought by 3/4 you meant a 300mm f4! Heard about those stabilisers on and off but never tried one, don't think it'd suit my uses.
Never tried the Miller heads, and that one seems a little light to me, but maybe on the smaller cameras it's OK. Probably best one I tried was an O'Connor 2575, but that was about 13kg I think just for the head, so just too insanely heavy for field work, that's why I got rid of the Atlas, and settled for the comparatively light 2060! The appeal of a "small" camera like the EX3 for wildlife is strong though, not just because the camera is lighter itself, but batteries are lighter, tripod doesn't need to be so heavy, and lenses of the same focal length has 50% more reach so you can take smaller lenses too. Be interesting to see how the EX3 compares to my PDW700 when I try it, thing is the 700 is only just borderline in terms of acceptance by BBC etc., so the EX3 will need to be at least as good to be in with a shout, particularly when you take into account the prejudices against compact cameras! XDR may be the final link in the chain that takes it to top level. Maybe.
Steve

[Paul Cronin]

Sorry Steve I should have been clearer a problem running three computers at the same time and the email always suffers.

I am going to B&H in the next few weeks I will put the O'Connor 2060 an Miller Arrow 25 Fluid head on my list to check out.

Also I am very interested in your findings with your PWD700 since that is one of the cameras on my list. But I agree if the EX3 with XDR Flash and the right glass is accepted all the better.

[Steve Phillipps]

Bear in mind that the latest 2060HD head is supplied with very light fluid levels (why, I have no idea) and even on maximum drag it's not really good for long lens work, but O'Connor can supply it with drag levels the same as on the older 2060 model for no extra charge. Maximum level (9) on the new version seemed equivalent to about level 4 on the older version, that's how great the difference was!
I would hope that you'd see quite a difference between a big head like the 2060 and the Arrow 25, but on a smaller camera maybe it won't make enough difference to justify the extra weight. If you do want something lighter the O'Connor 1030 is also apparently good and only the same weight as the Miller (Phil Savoie uses one with an Arriflex and 800mm lens!)
Steve

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Steve for the inside information on the O'Connor fluid level. It can't hurt to go a little bigger on the head and legs. I might not say that when I am 6 miles into a hike but I will love it when the long lens is on.

[Paul Cronin]

Ofer I have found a used Nikon 300mm f2.8 ED AIS for $1199US in excellent condition in a very nice padded hard box. Do you think this is a good price and worth getting compared to a Sigma 120-300? I would be using the Nikon on the EX3 with Mikes adapter locked on a tripod with rails to shoot some of my stock shots when a long lens is needed with shallow DOF.

Or is the Nikon 200-400 f4 ED AI-S a better all around option? Is this better then owning 3 prime lens? I know it would be a lot easier when I am walking in the marsh with a load on my back.

[Ronn Kilby]

For expert and detailed reviews of all nikkor lenses, check out http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Ronn that is a great link loaded with info for me to research.

[Steve Phillipps]

Paul, the 200-400 f4 is no good (even if you could find one) as it's not got internal focus, so the focus mechanism would be pretty heavy and liable to cause you to shake the camera. The new 200-400 is no good either as it's got no aperture ring.
If it was me I'd go for the Sigma, as it's so useful to have a variable focal length lens, both for different shot sizes and also to be able to find the subject. The Nikon 300mm f2.8 is a benchmark, excellent lens for sure, but the Sigma is right up according to all user comments I've seen.
Steve

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Steve,

Yea I saw that the 200-400 was internal focus.

I agree that is would be nice to have the Sigma 120-300 for the range of focal lengths if the quality of the picture is there and most seem to think it is.

Does the Sigma fit on mikes adapter? If not what do you use? Found the answer looks like it fits on Nikon so it should work with Mike's adapter for the EX3.

All the still lens are new ground for me.

[Steve Phillipps]

I don't use the EX3, but have played with one.
The Sigma will fit on the MTF adapter, but some of the latest Sigmas even in Nikon mount have no aperture rings, so check that out before buying, certainly the 120-300 in Nikon used to have a ring and they work fine.
The old ultra rare Nikon 200-400mm f4 has EXTERNAL focus and looks very unbalanced, the new one is supposed to be fabulous, BUT no aperture ring.
Not had a chance to put my long Canons on the EX3 yet (all Universal mounts) but hope to very soon (Canon FD 300 2.8, 500 4.5, 800 5.6 and 150-600 5.6). Also be nice to get some Nikon macros on it (I've got a 55 and 105).
Btw the Sigma 100-300 f4 also has a good rep.
Steve

[Marten Dalfors]

I'm having trouble getting good quality from my nikon lenses. When wide open it's really bad. If I stop down 2 steps it's better but not as good as the original lens. Any ideas? The sample below is from a 300/2.8 ED lens which is supposed to be a really good lens. I have also tried the 80-200 ED and a 135mm lens with about the same result. Is there something I can do in the camera to minimize this problem?

[Steve Phillipps]

Lens engineers will tell you not to be surprised when a lens for a larger format doesn't perform too well on a smaller one, it's because they're not made to give the same resolutions as the smaller sensors need. BUT in my experience it's not as bad as the science might suggest. I would expect the Nikon 300 to have good resolution (but not as good as the stock lens on EX3 or Canon XL-H1). I tried a Canon 300 and 150-600 on an F355 (1/2" chips like EX3) and they both worked really well.
There's a lot of lateral chromatic abberation on there too (blue fringing), and older stills lenses tend to be worse than newer ones in that respect. I hope to rry my stills lenses next week on the EX3, be interesting to see how they look.
Steve