Thanks and I will definitely go peek at the ManFrotto.

That looks like something I would do -- not turn around. LOL

Really an interesting pic.

With everything else being pretty much equal, is a 3-section tripod more stable than a 4-section? My logic tells me it should be for two main reasons. There are 3 less joints and the bottom sections will be a larger diameter.

I am deliberating over which Induro pod to buy. Both are carbon fiber and in the same family but the one that has 3-sections will be approx. 4" longer when folded. 28" vs 24". While the 4-section pod is a little over 1" taller with the column retracted -- 63.8" vs 62.6", that should be a wash. Both have identical load ratings at 39.6lbs. And the weight difference is negligible -- 5 lbs for the 4-section and 4.9 lbs for the 3 section.

So if I go with the 3-section, it won't be quite as portable but neither of them are real compact. If carried over the shoulder with the strap, I wouldn't think there would be that much of a difference. I should gain on stability, but I am unsure as to how much?

A second question. RRS pods (and other high-end) do not have a center extending column. If on an Induro, one keeps the center column retracted, and the camera close to the actual legs, does that pretty much eliminate any instability caused by it?

Thanks for your input.

I did some more experimenting yesterday and have now decided that instead of white or off-white, the dot is more of a very light green.

I've lived in Virginia for 44 years and have never seen a Cardinal ....... until a few minutes ago. It was perched on limb about 50 feet away.

Unfortunately I was on the phone at the time with my daughter and didn't have time to run and grab camera and get back before the Cardinal had flown away.

I have to say ... the most beautiful red I have ever seen. You just can't duplicate that color.

Correct

I've done a ton research on the Bounty and her story. While commonly known today as HMS Bounty, she was not a true "ship of the line" and back then most probably referred to as HMAV (His Majesty's Armed Vessel). There is some dispute as to the exact year that her keel was laid as the merchant ship Bethia -- 1782? 1783?
In 1787, the Royal Navy purchased, refitted, and armed her (4 four-pounder cannon, and 10 culverin guns) and she was commissioned HMAV Bounty in August. At the same time, Bligh was given the command to sail her to Otaheite (today called Tahiti) in search of breadfruit to hopefully be a food source for African slaves working in the Caribbean plantations. After weeks of agonizing delay, he finally departed Portsmouth on December 23 on the ill-fated voyage.

It is my belief that the initial delay compounded the whole chronology and was the root cause for the munity many months later. It meant that when the Bounty arrived at Cape Horn, they had missed the favorable time of the year to round the Horn, and instead battled it for one month in the most tempestuous conditions ever, only to have to give up, reverse course to the Cape Of Good Hope adding some 10,000 additional miles to the voyage.

The delay off Cape Horn led to a five-month delay in Tahiti during which time they had missed the ideal transplanting time of the breadfruit and subsequently had to wait for the trees to mature enough to transport. Over this period, naval discipline began to break down as the crew took native wives and enjoyed unparalleled freedoms. No wonder that they mutinied several weeks later once at sea.

After all the hours I've put in on researching the pods and heads, this aspect has become increasingly important. Thanks.

As someone else commented -- That is quite an article!Makes me feel foolish for even entertaining the thought that I could somehow keep expenses down and still shoot exceptional photos.

Not too far into the article, there is this passage: "The bottom line is simple: if the camera is moving when you shoot, you'll never resolve what the lens is capable of. Other factors enter into the picture, too. If you mount your camera on a decent tripod but hang a heavy lens off the front (like the 80-200mm AF-S), you can actually get the center of gravity far enough out from the leg support that the front of the lens still moves a bit during exposure. And on many Nikon bodies, there's tangible "mirror slap" vibration that shows up with telephoto lenses when the shutter speed is in the 1/2 to 1/15 range (I usually suggest either avoiding the 1 second to 1/30 range with lenses over 100mm unless you have a solid platform and use either mirror lockup (F4, F5, F6, D200, D2 series) or shutter delay option (D1 series, D80, and D100).
How do you tell if you've got a problem? Mount a longish lens on your camera and tripod (a 70-200mm or similar will do). Frame a shot with the tripod head loosened. Tighten the head down. Did your shot move? If yes, then you've got a bad head. Now take a 1/2 second exposure (why 1/2 second? I want the shutter to move in two actions, not one continuous one) while carefully watching the front of the lens. Did you see it move up/down/sideways in any fashion? If yes, then you've got a bad head and/or legs. Another possible test: lock the camera down. Pull down on the front of the lens slightly and release. It shouldn't move."

Very quickly it dawns on me that the cheap tripods with inferior heads will not suffice. The stable platform is the end goal and it is now obvious to me that if "I want to play with the big dogs, I have to get off the porch".

After watching their video, I am now toying with purchasing one of the Acratech ball mounts. I love precision and I love the looks of their designs. But the Acratech mount is going to need a comparable tripod, so I have to start doing my research.

No, I didn't think to add that feature into the equation.

In auto mode, I cycled back and forth several times between autofocus and manual focus and noticed the same effect each time. I had my flash attached and reflecting off the ceiling.

I probably ought to try either A or S mode instead of automatic and see if I see the same effect. I might be slowly convincing myself to start using manual focus much more often. :thumbup:

Ok, I redid the attachments and now you can zoom in on both. I have to agree - the manual focus is ever so slightly better. Inside the model, I am specifically looking at the two launches, one on top of the other. Also for some reason, switching to manual focus improved the overall image color.

For a relatively closeup shot of an encased model, the question is: does autofocus target the clear Optix acrylic window, or does it "see through it" and focus on the actual model itself -- the center of which would be around 7" deeper?

The first pic was done with autofocus - the second manual.

(Download)


(Download)

I had this question on another thread but it got buried under 9 pages of "chatter" :mrgreen:

I have a green dot question when manually focusing? How green is green to an average person?

On both my Nikon lenses, indoors or out, the dot is white -- or maybe it could be slightly "off white".

Thinking about this, I am now going to assume this has to do with my new eye lenses following cataract surgery last year. I paid premium for self adjusting lenses (which are designed much like a Fresnel lens) so that I could get by without reading glasses. However, in the last year I have found some issues. For instance, night driving is a bit more difficult with approaching headlights. Also, on a bright sunny day, whenever I drive on a wooded country road, the transition from the dark shaded areas into sunny areas on the road is bothersome. Kind of like over-exposure.

So, my question is for those who have had cataract surgery.......... do you notice any oddities with the viewfinder? And specifically, when using manual focusing, what color is the "green" dot?

10-4, we're cool.
:)

LOL -- yeah there is definitely a touch of cabin fever in the air. 2 to 4" more of Climate Change coming in tonight. Early March is always a crap shoot. Next week though, much more Spring-like and going hiking with a friend to practice all that I have learned here.