 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2007what's new on the "how can we possibly give a sh*t" horizon? I up and bought a D200 last night.
Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have finally bought a D200. So, I at least give a sh*t, but I'll understand if you do not share the sentiment... Just felt like sayin' it. > Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have finally > bought a D200. So, I at least give a sh*t, but I'll understand if you do > not share the sentiment... > Just felt like sayin' it. I hope you appreciate yours as much as I've been appreciating mine! The viewfinder is a big step up from the Fuji S2, and the focus is much faster and more accurate, and I appreciate better support for my AIS lenses. (My other big deal was the iTTL flash, which the S2 didn't have; but you already had that on the D70, so perhaps it's not so exciting.) >> Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have >> finally bought a D200. So, I at least give a sh*t, but I'll understand [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (My other big deal was the iTTL flash, which the S2 didn't have; but you > already had that on the D70, so perhaps it's not so exciting.) I'm looking forward to it, that's for sure. (Dang UPS just got the billing--I'll refresh in five more minutes to see if they've got it on the truck yet!) I have several AI and AIS lenses, and will look at buying some more, though I suppose I'll have to get that Tamron wide-angle--or was it Tokina--that I've heard people speak well of. Seems to me it was a Tokina 12-24 f4. > I'm looking forward to it, that's for sure. (Dang UPS just got the > billing--I'll refresh in five more minutes to see if they've got it > on the truck yet!) I have several AI and AIS lenses, and will look > at buying some more, though I suppose I'll have to get that Tamron > wide-angle--or was it Tokina--that I've heard people speak well of. Seems > to me it was a Tokina 12-24 f4. Congrats on the D200, you will love it. As for lenses, get all 2.8s starting with the 70-200mm VR, 28-70, and 17-35 and all your bases will be covered. The Tokina is the 12-24 you really want. Don't buy the 18-200mm VR unless you want it for the very last lens in your collection and to just say that you have one. Of course, there are a few decent primes you'll want, but the three zooms I mentioned will keep you very happy for a while. Rita >> I'm looking forward to it, that's for sure. (Dang UPS just got the >> billing--I'll refresh in five more minutes to see if they've got it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > want, but the three zooms I mentioned will keep you very happy for a > while. Thanks Rita, I have the 17-35 2.8, and an 80-200 2.8. I'd love the 70-200 VR, but not yet (my wife would skin me). I also have a 35-70 2.8. I also have a 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 55mm macro, PB5 bellows, and the legendary 105 2.5. I've been shooting with Nikon since 1995. > I have the 17-35 2.8, and an 80-200 2.8. I'd love the 70-200 VR, but > not yet (my wife would skin me). I also have a 35-70 2.8. I also > have a 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 55mm macro, PB5 bellows, and the > legendary > 105 2.5. I've been shooting with Nikon since 1995. Great collection! How do you like the PB5 bellows? I'm considering getting a set to play with, but wonder how practical they are out in the field? I shoot macro primarily handheld, so I assuming they might not bet too practical. Rita >> I have the 17-35 2.8, and an 80-200 2.8. I'd love the 70-200 VR, but >> not yet (my wife would skin me). I also have a 35-70 2.8. I also [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > field? I shoot macro primarily handheld, so I assuming they might not bet > too practical. Won't work handheld, the magnification is just too great, even at its least setting. I've used it with a bean bag to get pics of mushrooms and lichens, and fun stuff like that. Works well on a tripod. Hard to find a lens that works well at extreme magnification, though. Either that, or I just suck at focusing at extreme magnifications. >>> Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have >>> finally bought a D200. So, I at least give a sh*t, but I'll understand [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Tokina--that I've heard people speak well of. Seems to me it was a Tokina > 12-24 f4. That's the one *I've* got, anyway; I picked it based on searching for pictures on pbase and photo.net with lenses in that range, and seeing which lenses the ones I really liked were taken with. I think it's a great lens, the only thing wrong with it is written in big letters -- f/4. I didn't like the results, or the price, or the zoom range, of the Tamron 11-18mm. The one I half-wish I'd bought is actually the Sigma 10-20mm (which was new enough back when I bought mine that I couldn't find much info). 12mm doesn't get me quite to the angle of view I had on film; 10mm improves on it. Since I didn't buy it, I don't know how I'd actually have liked it. It gets good reviews that I've seen, but I don't sense the excitement some people seem to have when writing about the Tokina. So maybe I'm better off with what I have. At least I avoid the public stigma of owning a Sigma (well, unless people notice my 105mm f/2.8). (The faster focus on the D200 won't help you much on the AIS lenses, of course :-)) >Snipped< Seems to me it was a Tokina : > 12-24 f4. : [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : I didn't like the results, or the price, or the zoom range, of the : Tamron 11-18mm. I have a Tamron 11-18 which I use to good effect as a portrait lens - would you believe? The ability to have the subject very prominent in the foreground and an interesting background fully described produces some curiously good results from a lens range never considered suitable for such things. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/fun/tamron-11-18.jpg is a portrait of a flower demonstrating what I just described - sans a person! From Douglas... My photographic site: http://www.photosbydouglas.com Canvas prints and Digital enlargements: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au >>Snipped< > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/fun/tamron-11-18.jpg is a portrait of a > flower demonstrating what I just described - sans a person! The idiot is back. I'll bet that looks great on canvas. Greg : The idiot is back. I'll bet that looks great on canvas. : : Greg Oh? Have you been somewhere? Douglas >> Snipped< > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I have a Tamron 11-18 which I use to good effect as a portrait lens - would > you believe? Well, let's say that isn't the *first* use that would have leaped to my mind, no! > The ability to have the subject very prominent in the > foreground and an interesting background fully described produces some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/fun/tamron-11-18.jpg is a portrait of a > flower demonstrating what I just described - sans a person! That one looks quite nice! > I have a Tamron 11-18 which I use to good effect as a portrait lens - > would you believe? The ability to have the subject very prominent in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/fun/tamron-11-18.jpg is a portrait of a > flower demonstrating what I just described - sans a person! Nice shot, I really like the perspective. Rita : > I have a Tamron 11-18 which I use to good effect as a portrait lens - : > would you believe? The ability to have the subject very prominent in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : : Rita Careful Rita... You'll have the pundits out telling you the perspective never changes from lens to lens... Really got a heated argument going when I suggested an 85mm lens would give you a better perspective for portraits than a 20mm one... Thanks for the comment.  SignatureDouglas Australian Wedding Photography between Kempsy, NSW and Sunshine Coast. http://www.photosbydouglas.com Digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com > : > I have a Tamron 11-18 which I use to good effect as a portrait lens - > : > would you believe? The ability to have the subject very prominent in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > suggested an 85mm lens would give you a better perspective for portraits > than a 20mm one... It's easy to prove that the lens used doesn't change the perspective, just by taking a bunch of shots at different focal lengths from a camera locked on a tripod. It's easiest with a zoom (less chance of nudging things out of alignment if you don't have to change lenses). Um, you *do* know what "perspective" means, right? The size relationships of objects in the picture? If you change *just the camera position*, the perspective changes. If you change *the camera position and the lens*, the perspective changes. If you change *just the lens*, the perspective does not change. Thus, the perspective is controlled by the camera position, not by the lens. What'd I tell ya? The perspective of a portrait is described in volumes of Photographic and artistic instruction manuals and recognized authorities. Publications from such mundane authorities as Ilford and Kodak who brought photography to the masses. It has nothing to do with the optical perspective of a lens and everything to do with the perspective of the picture... As perceived by such nondescript authorities, teachers of art and all it's principals as Leonardo Da Vinci and a few other (usually European) artists who's portraits are on display in Art galleries I can't even pronounce the names of and occasionally for sale at prices I consider more closely resembling serial numbers. Rembrandt? Even Pablo Picasso understood the importance of getting the perspective of his portraits right. You, David like many before you in this group, are blurring the boundaries between what we make and how we make it. There is no need to understand or even know how an internal combustion engine loses power as the air it uses for ignition gets hotter to be able to drive a car in the desert. No need either to know any information about a lens other than how it effects the picture you are creating. Why then blur the 1000 year old perspective used by artists to describe their creations with the science of engineering? The people who invented three dimensional pictures before ever a lens was used to make a photograph and teachers of art today, understand the perspective of portraits. Why then should an engineer so rigidly fixed in his perception (mental not optical) that he cannot allow the description of "perspective of a portrait" to enter his tiny world of absolute mathematics which he uses to describe everything, be trying to argue a point of art in the first place? My perception of why is simply to announce their ability to engineer or understand the engineering of a complex optical device without regard for the purpose that device will be put to by it's eventual owner... Sort of like the "how many engineers are needed to screw in a BC light bulb". Given this is a digital news group inhabited by a significant number digital engineers who are (mostly) wannabe artists and photographers, I can understand entirely your rigid belief that the perspective of a portrait is something you, yourself cannot perceive. Instead, your training or understanding of optical design tells you the optical perspective of a lens never changes and prefer to defend the mathematics of this whilst ignoring the fact the perspective of a portrait is a description used at least 1000 years ago and simply go about your life as you perceive it (mentally not optically) to be. That's my opinion. SignatureFrom Douglas... My photographic site: http://www.photosbydouglas.com Canvas prints and Digital enlargements: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au : > Careful Rita... You'll have the pundits out telling you the perspective : > never changes from lens to lens... Really got a heated argument going when I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : locked on a tripod. It's easiest with a zoom (less chance of nudging : things out of alignment if you don't have to change lenses). > What'd I tell ya? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > masses. It has nothing to do with the optical perspective of a lens and > everything to do with the perspective of the picture... What is this "optical perspective of a lens"? That's not a concept I've previously encountered. The perspective I'm talking about is exactly the same perspective that you are talking about -- formally, the size relationships of the elements in the picture. > As perceived by such nondescript authorities, teachers of art and all it's > principals as Leonardo Da Vinci and a few other (usually European) artists > who's portraits are on display in Art galleries I can't even pronounce the > names of and occasionally for sale at prices I consider more closely > resembling serial numbers. Rembrandt? Even Pablo Picasso understood the > importance of getting the perspective of his portraits right. Yep, they all understood its importance, and also how to achieve it. Do you? > You, David like many before you in this group, are blurring the boundaries > between what we make and how we make it. There is no need to understand or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > perspective used by artists to describe their creations with the science of > engineering? I am not blurring; I am in fact *defending* the precise boundaries of the definition against an attempt by you and others to blur the meaning of the word. > The people who invented three dimensional pictures before ever a lens was > used to make a photograph and teachers of art today, understand the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which he uses to describe everything, be trying to argue a point of art in > the first place? Because my understanding relates to the real world, and to how people perceive the portraits/pictures. It's a basic part of understanding how to make art. > My perception of why is simply to announce their ability to engineer or > understand the engineering of a complex optical device without regard for > the purpose that device will be put to by it's eventual owner... Sort of > like the "how many engineers are needed to screw in a BC light bulb". You lose; I don't design lenses, or any other complex optical devices. I only use them. > Given this is a digital news group inhabited by a significant number digital > engineers who are (mostly) wannabe artists and photographers, I can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > years ago and simply go about your life as you perceive it (mentally not > optically) to be. That's my opinion. No, the perspective of a portrait is something anybody can easily perceive, looking at the portrait. I don't know what you're on about here, but it doesn't relate to anything I've said or anything I believe. : > What'd I tell ya? big snip : What is this "optical perspective of a lens"? That's not a concept I've : previously encountered. The perspective I'm talking about is exactly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : Yep, they all understood its importance, and also how to achieve it. Do : you? Condecending remarks like this only serve to fuel the fire you are fanning. You ARE bluring the the boundaries and trying to obfusicate your manipulation of my words in the process. Not an American by any chance, are you? You simply cannot achieve a "correct perspective" in a photographic portrait with a 11mm lens on an APS sized camera. The fact I use such lenses to good effect in certain portraits is coincidental and it only works because I use the inherent distortion of these lenses to alter the perspective of the portrait. NOTE: two different uses of the word. You try to create an argument that because what I termed the "Optical perspective" - to seperate the two uses of the word "perspective" in this discussion, is something you have not heard used before. How quaint. The perspective of a portrait is changed by using different lenses even though the perspective of the different lenses is unchanged throught their focal length. If you can't grasp that simple notion, you may continue to peddle your cart or not as the choice is yours. SignatureFrom Douglas... Wedding and Portrait specialist: http://www.photosbydouglas.com Canvas prints and Digital enlargements: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au Wedding Photography anywhere on the east coast of Australia. > : > What'd I tell ya? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > manipulation of my words in the process. Not an American by any chance, are > you? Pot. Kettle. Black. Especially about the condescension. I spent a fair amount of effort trying to tone it *down*. > You simply cannot achieve a "correct perspective" in a photographic portrait > with a 11mm lens on an APS sized camera. The fact I use such lenses to good > effect in certain portraits is coincidental and it only works because I use > the inherent distortion of these lenses to alter the perspective of the > portrait. > NOTE: two different uses of the word. The whole concept of a "correct perspective" is nonsense. Since you put it in scare-quotes, maybe you mean something else, but I don't know what it might be. > You try to create an argument that because what I termed the "Optical > perspective" - to seperate the two uses of the word "perspective" in this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > focal length. If you can't grasp that simple notion, you may continue to > peddle your cart or not as the choice is yours. What you're saying is flat-out untrue, as I and many others have explained at length over the years. Come on, it's a simple concept. Illustrate it for us. Show pictures, explaining exactly what the setups are (what the differences between them are). The classic photo demonstrating my, standard, correct, position is available on every camera store counter in the world -- those series of photos taken from one location with the entire range of lenses of some particular manufacturer. The perspective is unchanged throughout the series, despite focal lengths changing from 14mm to 1200mm or whatever, because the camera position hasn't been changed. : > : > What'd I tell ya? : > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : series, despite focal lengths changing from 14mm to 1200mm or whatever, : because the camera position hasn't been changed. You really don't have a clue about the perspective of portraiture and the relationship of focal length to that perspective, do you? SignatureFrom Douglas... Wedding and Portrait specialist: http://www.photosbydouglas.com Canvas prints and Digital enlargements: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au Wedding Photography anywhere on the east coast of Australia. >: > : > What'd I tell ya? >: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >You really don't have a clue about the perspective of portraiture and the >relationship of focal length to that perspective, do you? Actually he does. You seem to be confusing perspective with magnification. > What'd I tell ya? OMFG. Why don't you crawl back into your troll hole and stay there this time? Greg : > What'd I tell ya? : : OMFG. Why don't you crawl back into your troll hole and stay there this : time? : : Greg Perhaps if you'd get out of it for a while there might be room. Doug >> OMFG. Why don't you crawl back into your troll hole and stay there >> this time? >> >> Greg >> > Perhaps if you'd get out of it for a while there might be room. Give him a few hours since he has to move the "1,000" Dells he screwed up. Ask Greg about that for some real perspective. Rita >>> OMFG. Why don't you crawl back into your troll hole and stay there >>> this time? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Give him a few hours since he has to move the "1,000" Dells he screwed up. > Ask Greg about that for some real perspective. Funny that Dell finally offered to replace the rest of the motherboards and harddrives in our GX620s without us having to call them upon failure. And you suggest it's my fault that Dell speced sh.t? Don't give me that "you shouldn't have bought GX620s" bullshit, if a computer vendor offers a model for sale you should be able to at least run Word and IE on them without them bluescreening. Try better bait next time. Thankfully one of our execs has seen the light and is making our server team, storage team, Internet/VPN team, Exchange team, and Indian helpdesk learn Macs and support them. I took inventory here today for our newly formed Mac team and just in my little department we have 32 Macs and there are more arriving every day. Just this week the Mac team started distributing a preconfigured Cisco Mac VPN client for our home Mac users. I sent out an email announcing it and I think I'm going to need to purchase a CD duplicator the demand has been so high. Cheers, Greg Signature"What have you got in that paper bag? Is it a dose of Vitamin C? Ain't got no time for Western medicine I am Damo Suzuki" - Mark E Smith : >>> OMFG. Why don't you crawl back into your troll hole and stay there : >>> this time? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : : Bullshit snipped... : bluescreening. : : Try better bait next time. Ha, ha.... ROTFL! You took 20 or so lines to answer the two from Rita. Seems to me that hit the spot right enough. Now just wait for the apples to need parts and maybe you'll see why Dell ain't so bad after all - when you make the right choice of course! ROTFL some more... >> David Dyer-Bennet wrote >>> >>>> Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have >>>> finally bought a D200. So, I at least give a sh*t, but I'll >>>> understand if you do not share the sentiment... >>>> Just felt like sayin' it. Congrats Matt, you will love it! >> ...though I suppose I'll have to get that Tamron >> wide-angle--or was it Tokina--that I've heard people speak well of. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > doesn't get me quite to the angle of view I had on film; 10mm improves > on it. The 10.5mm Nikkor fisheye is the only DX on my wish list. I did get the full frame Sigma 12-24 without researching enough... well maybe I'll get a full frame body some day... it does have exceptionally low distortion... straight lines stay straight. It flares terribly though and ain't particularly sharp, nasty bokeh etc but oh well, still darn fun to shoot with. > Since I didn't buy it, I don't know how I'd actually have liked > it. It gets good reviews that I've seen, but I don't sense the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (The faster focus on the D200 won't help you much on the AIS lenses, of > course :-)) >>>> Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have >>>> finally bought a D200. So, I at least give a sh*t, but I'll [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > (The faster focus on the D200 won't help you much on the AIS lenses, > of course :-)) David, How's the Sigma 10-20 at close focus? Thanks, Matt > How's the Sigma 10-20 at close focus? 24cm, or about 9 inches, at all focal lengths< it says here <http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3301&navigator=6> >> How's the Sigma 10-20 at close focus? > > 24cm, or about 9 inches, at all focal lengths< it says here > <http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3301&navigator=6> I knew I should have better qualified that question right after I posted it. What I mean is, is it sharp at close focus--lenses that focus that close typically have to have something like Nikon's CRC (close range correction) to maintain sharpness. Thanks, Matt >>> How's the Sigma 10-20 at close focus? >> 24cm, or about 9 inches, at all focal lengths< it says here [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > typically have to have something like Nikon's CRC (close range correction) > to maintain sharpness. Oops. I considered that interpretation, but since I'd said 10-20mm was the lens I *didn't* buy, I figured you must have meant the other. >>>> How's the Sigma 10-20 at close focus? >>> 24cm, or about 9 inches, at all focal lengths< it says here [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Oops. I considered that interpretation, but since I'd said 10-20mm was > the lens I *didn't* buy, I figured you must have meant the other. So it is nice and sharp up close? Don't worry Matt... There's a few neat plugins for Photoshop to mimic just about every monochrome process known to man. I've crossed back and forth to film digital for over a year. Finally found exactly my cup of tea in an Epson r2400 and synthetic mono prints... No one (sadly) knows the difference in the final prints. SignatureAustralian Wedding Photography between Kempsy, NSW and Sunshine Coast. http://www.photosbydouglas.com Digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com : Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have finally : bought a D200. So, I at least give a sh*t, but I'll understand if you do : not share the sentiment... : Just felt like sayin' it. > Don't worry Matt... There's a few neat plugins for Photoshop to mimic just > about every monochrome process known to man. I've crossed back and forth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > difference > in the final prints. No worries. What's the name of the plugins you're familiar with? I like this one best Matt: http://www.thepluginsite.com/products/photowiz/bwstyler/index.htm In fact I like all Photowiz stuff. Alienskin "Exposure" is another one I like. Exposure mimics film types whilst BWstyler mimics print processes. Here is a quick and dirty example look at this original and 'developed' image from a FZ50 Panasonic, 10 Mp camera. These Leica lenses continue to be amazing. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/fun/Digital-monochrome.htm In fact the whole camera is absolutely stunning in how it puts those overpriced plastic DSLRs from Canon to shame. (400D to be precise). It's RAW capture is still being evaluated by me. It uses "Silky Pix", a Japanese RAW developer which I liked at first but need to work with it more before I decide. I hope you find some value in the exercise I have shared. Douglas, Addicted top poster! SignatureAustralian Wedding Photography between Kempsy, NSW and Sunshine Coast. http://www.photosbydouglas.com Digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com Original Message------------------------------------- From: : : No worries. What's the name of the plugins you're familiar with? > Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have finally > bought a D200. So, I at least give a sh*t, but I'll understand if you do > not share the sentiment... > Just felt like sayin' it. Congrats Matt, a DSLR to call your own. Did you have to promise to renovate the entire house for this one? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have >> finally bought a D200. So, I at least give a sh*t, but I'll understand [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Did you have to promise to renovate the entire house for this one? Nope. When my grandfather died he left us some money. I bought a Mamiya 6 and a couple lenses and we took a trip to England. Later I converted the Mamiya 6 etc. into a Rollei 6008i and a couple lenses. That Rollei sits on a shelf more than anything else, so I finally decided to convert it into a decent digital slr. I still have an RB67 and a couple lenses, and those are getting cheaper by the day, so I'm going to buy some more equipment for that down the line. The Rollei lenses were prohibitive--even more than their 'blad counterparts--so I wasn't going to be building that system up, ever. >>>Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have >>>finally bought a D200. So, I at least give a sh*t, but I'll understand [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > down the line. The Rollei lenses were prohibitive--even more than their > 'blad counterparts--so I wasn't going to be building that system up, ever. I was just teasing in reference to your purchasing adventure with the 17-35 Nikkor. I'm slowly building up a blad system which has taken a detour via a Nikon 9000 ED. I believe I'll need a glass film holder for that which is quite expensive (for what it is), not to mention always out of stock. That has slammed my photo budget for a few months. Next on the list are a wider angle lens (a 40 or 50mm) and perhaps a 120 Makro. On topic, I'm waiting with bated breath to see if Sony "do right" with their next DSLR ... hopefully a D200 or even 5D class machine. Full frame would be nice. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > On topic, I'm waiting with bated breath to see if Sony "do right" with > their next DSLR ... hopefully a D200 or even 5D class machine. Full > frame would be nice. I would be killer if it came with the nikon F mount. Rita >>>>Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have >>>>finally bought a D200. So, I at least give a sh*t, but I'll understand [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Cheers, > Alan I got tired of waiting for full frame, plus it occured to me that even if they do come out with full frame this year, it'll be out of my price range for a number of years after they introduce it. The $1400 I put down on the D200 is more than I care to spend on a body. After all, I'm basically trading an entire medium-format kit for it. This'll likely be it for me for five years or so, digitally speaking. Then again, all those GM bonds my grandpa left me mature in 2008... ;-) What finally sold me on the D200 is that Nikon is throwing in the kitchen sink on this one, holding very little back over their top of the line product(s). I can't think of a single other Nikon prosumer camera that offered mirror lockup and weather sealing, magnesium alloy build, not to mention things I'll likely never use, like 5 fps. And the kicker is the ability to use AI/AIS lenses on it, of which I have six or so--not that the fisheye will do me any good on it, dang it. I still have an F100 for that, though. Are you getting much use out of your Minolta dSLR? I like very much my Nikon 8000 ED, and consider it one of my best photographic purchases to date. >>>>>Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have >>>>>finally bought a D200. So, I at least give a sh*t, but I'll understand [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > five years or so, digitally speaking. Then again, all those GM bonds my > grandpa left me mature in 2008... ;-) Temptation! > What finally sold me on the D200 is that Nikon is throwing in the kitchen > sink on this one, holding very little back over their top of the line [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Are you getting much use out of your Minolta dSLR? No. Work has been time demanding. It's a very good DSLR albeit on the "poor" pixel-count side by todays measure. I shot about 500 frames in Colorado this summer and 8 rolls of 120 on the blad. Other than that a little bit of shooting for work... It has less than 5000 frames on it which is very little considering I bought it nearly 2 years ago. The A100 from Sony is just shy of what I want in a body and the image quality is noticeably shy of the 400D. I hope they get it right soon. > I like very much my Nikon 8000 ED, and consider it one of my best > photographic purchases to date. I've only run one frame through the 9000 to date and printed that at 24"x24". Grain? Noise? What's that? Unfortunately there's a bit too much magenta cast in it so I have to get together with the print man at the photo store to work out a process. I need a color management flow starting with my monitor (LCD which I can barely get to match its own calibration routine for brightness and contrast) through to the store printer. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I've only run one frame through the 9000 to date and printed that at > 24"x24". Grain? Noise? What's that? Unfortunately there's a bit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to match its own calibration routine for brightness and contrast) > through to the store printer. If you decide there's a problem at the scanner end, there's a nice package called Kodak Custom Color Tools which includes reflective and transparency targets. It's here: http://shop.colourconfidence.com/section.php?xSec=16 Andrew. > Yes, after a year and a half of scavenging the D70 at work, I have finally > bought a D200. My condolences. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.