1. Go with a 9-10 stop filter as others will never slow a waterfall down enough on a sunny day, and you can always raise ISO with a 9-10 stop to match the lesser filters (1, 2, 3 stop) but not the other way around.
2. Go with a larger filter (77mm or larger), but invest in step rings. They are cheap and will a) prevent any accidental movement from bumping in to the camera while holding it, and b) will prevent any accidental reflections and stray light issues if they are held too far away.
3. Avoid variable ND's at all costs. They work well up to about 6 stops and then begin to produce hot spots and lines. I've bought and returned 3 "good ones" and they were all the same.
4. If you have a smart phone download the NDTimer app. It will tell you precisely what your exposure should be when you plug in the exposure without the filter. It will also allow you to stack multiple ND filters if you ever want to do that.
5. Always meter in direct light first and not through the 9-10 stop, it will be more accurate - unless removing is problematic, in which case be prepared to work in Aperture Priority mode once for a test shot, then plug those settings into Manual and adjust accordingly depending on how the first shot works.
..........3. Avoid variable ND's at all costs. They work well up to about 6 stops and then begin to produce hot spots and lines. I've bought and returned 3 "good ones" and they were all the same............
I find my Singh-Ray works just fine up to 8-1/3 stops.
Personally, I'd love it if Nikon recalled there is such a thing as ISO 4. I'd buy a D800-class body in a heartbeat if it came with a native ISO that low. I don't need ISO 16 quadrillion every day. 4-400 would suit me juuuuuuuuuuuuuust fine!
I do not understand this, ever tried to work with a cheaper 500mm at best f8 in the underbush to shoot moving animals. ISO 1600 and up are needed for quite some shooting and it is one of the points where Nikon keeps beating Canon for the moment it seems.
Ever notice I don't take many wildlife shots?
Why do I need ISO 16 quadrillion for landscapes? Instead of degrading images with the introduction of a filter, I'd rather be able to dial down my ISO to single digits and get nice, crisp, clear images of silky, flowing water.
And save the cost of a $200 10-stop and a $500 VND.
I see the point of avoiding extra things in between the sensor and the subject.
But silky water is never crisp or clear.
Quickly checking there is no brand going for ISO below 50 it seems (like it was on film), technical reason or is there no market for it?
And save the cost of a $200 10-stop and a $500 VND.
Also with an ND filter. You can buy a big one and just hold it in front of your lens. Cheap and easy for shots just a few seconds long. This way you only need to carry one ND filter for multiple lenses of different sizes.
Ever notice I don't take many wildlife shots?
Why do I need ISO 16 quadrillion for landscapes? Instead of degrading images with the introduction of a filter, I'd rather be able to dial down my ISO to single digits and get nice, crisp, clear images of silky, flowing water.
And save the cost of a $200 10-stop and a $500 VND.
Dear GAWD... So very much this. I think ISO 4 might be a dream but jeez, can I at *least* have ISO-FREAKING-25 pretty please with freaking sugar on top, Nikon? I mean, really; would that be so hard? From a technical standpoint I'm thinking it would be a piece of cake, at least compared to making the sensor *more* sensitive... But what do I know.Personally, I'd love it if Nikon recalled there is such a thing as ISO 4. I'd buy a D800-class body in a heartbeat if it came with a native ISO that low. I don't need ISO 16 quadrillion every day. 4-400 would suit me juuuuuuuuuuuuuust fine!