peter_eisenburger

<p>never mind, Arthur :)) at first I saw the link at (name forbidden by photo.net) and wasn't sure myself what to think of it. it's entertaining to read the discussion of the review at Amazon :)<br>

ammendment:<br>

-- sorry, but that was my last post here for some time.<br>

I got this message as a reply to my first attempt to post this message:<br>

"Please do not mention or post links to rumor sites that are full of nonsense."<br>

not even _mention_? I understood tinyurl, but links to Ken Rockwell are forbidden and the site, which publishes news and rumors about upcoming Nikon may not even be mentioned. oh boy!<br>

no fun discussing on a board that is under strong and non acceptable censorship.<br>

I am curious whether the censors allow me to publish this critic.<br>

so long<br>

Peter</p>

 

<p>alright, Lex, I understand. -<br>

regarding the review, it's obviously a joke. I wanted to brighten up the day of Nikon followers here. but it seems I failed for some users...</p>

I don't know if this review at Amazon.com has been posted. Take a look. It's worth it.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-camera-35mm-body-only/product-reviews/B0006GQ6K6/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R28UVQ0O5MLTNL

 

(sorry, had a Tinyurl link but that seems to be forbidden here (why?) like some other links too)

<p>you will need to change the standard settings of the D7000. they are much too too soft for painting photography. you need the setting for sharpness a few notches higher. take also care of saturation (maybe one notch higher). ISO 100 of course. take good care of light and WB.</p>

<p>It depends on what you do and what you want, also on which lens collection you have got already.<br>

You might want to take a look at this review:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/<br>

The Amazon user reviews are also very helpful.<br>

I just acquired the 50 mm 1.4G. Too early for me to give substantial insight. I still have to find out whether the difficulties to track moving objects and autofocus on them stems from the lenses or from the camera (D90). I nearly suggest, it's the camera, though I use dynamic and continous AF.<br>

The old 50 mm 1.8 AF (no D) was my first Nikon prime at all. You won't be disappointed with that either. I was happy with that lens for 10 years. Alone, look at the price! <br>

The 1.4 G is more professional in many ways, and since I sent back my D7000, I have free money to invest ;)</p>

<p>"but a rule that this forum's moderators have specifically added"<br>

In any way and with all respect, it's ridiculous.</p>

<p>Juri, that's focus stacking, something I just learned about a minute ago (thank you, Roberta!). That would be the third step before the first.</p>

<p>The 60 mm / 2.8 AF D doesn't autofocus on the Nikon D40 - at least that's what I read. You have to focus manually. Turn on M on the lens _and!_ turn on the switch of the D40 to M. (My D90 manual says you can ruin the lens if you don't turn both switches to M).<br>

Macro lenses have a very shallow depth of field. It will maybe surprise you. You can enlarge it a bit with a smaller aperture if you have enough light, but don't go to far because of diffraction.<br>

It's my favourite lens. Nearly all the macros in my gallery were done with it.<br>

You can read useful things at Ken Rockwell's site about this lens. PN forbids to post links to Ken.</p>

<p>Also there's a problem with the number of ratings and number of views not possibly matching in a case here (2 views and 4 ratings?): <br>

<a href="../photo/12165091">http://www.photo.net/photo/12165091</a></p>

<p>I just saw the thread with the same question: http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00Xomq<br>

Sorry, but somehow it didn't show up in my browser.</p>

<p>Is it only me or why does the number of ratings in the overview of a gallery not always match the number of ratings shown in the single picture view?<br>

Example (check the yellow flower) - 3 ratings vs. 4 ratings as of 2010712/29, 16:09<br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=286903">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=286903</a><br>

<a href="../photo/12156511">http://www.photo.net/photo/12156511</a></p>

<p>Look at Ken Rockwell's site for information about these two lenses. I wanted to post the link, but photo.net said: "We are blocking links to Ken Rockwell's site." Ridiculous.<br>

Personally, I always liked the bokeh of the 60 mm.<br>

Maybe you should also consider the 105 mm Micro-Nikkor.</p>

 

<p>This lens is very good, also for portraits:<br>

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-60Mm-F2-8D-Micro-Nikkor/dp/B00005LE77/<br>

With the D40 only manually focusing (no problem with a macro lens). However, it is upwards compatible ;)<br>

Not the cheapest, but not the most expensive either. Look for used offers at Amazon or Ebay. You can get it between 200 and 300 British Pound.</p>

<p>I also came from the beloved F80 (since 2000) and chose the D90 in summer this year. It comes with a great price now and you will not regret buying it. Image quality of this camera is overwhelming compared to film.<br>

Depending on what you shoot, you could consider the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm 1:1,8G. It is cheap and it would match your 50mm. Take real time to decide for a prime or zoom with a wide end.<br>

Personally I will not acquire any DX lenses, because I plan to return to full format with the D800. Meanwhile I ordered the D7000, because it has some options I like as a virtual horizon, higher ISO etc.</p>



<p>"this lenses (50 mm / 1.8 AF) are pre-digital designs, hence not intended to be used with digital cameras"<br>

no. I used this nice lens on my F80 and now on my D90 w/o any restrictions. AF lenses like this one are perfectly alright for Nikon DSLR like D90, D7000 etc.<br>

however, if I was to buy a new lens for a DX format, I would buy a DX lens in most cases - except if wanted to return to digital FX format in the near future.</p>

<p>Stefan , not "everybody is using hoods" or filters. Zach doesn't, I don't. I only used an UV filter in the old days until I learned that high-quality lenses don't need extra UV protection. But it depends. If you did a lot of shooting on the beach for instance, you would surely want to use some kind of filter.<br>

Still, I will give the Nikon neutral filter a closer look. I didn't know sth. like this exists.</p>

 

<p>Well, I made my choice. I thought the D90 would be just the same class as the F80 as the camera for an ambitious amateur and right now the D90 has just the same price level as the F80 ten years ago.<br>

I'm not disappointed. The D90 is a phantastic camera - though of course you have to care about the settings, especially white balance and exposure, which I found a bit overridden in some situations.<br>

10 years of progress can be clearly seen. I can make photos which were not possible in this way with film and the F80. Also, now I have them directly on the screen and do not have to let them be developed and then digitise them.<br>

Two of my first shots during the last days:<br>

http://www.eisenburger.de/jpgs/Henry_2010-07-02.jpg<br>

The picture of my dog was taken with closed blinds and the 50mm/1:1.8.<br>

http://www.eisenburger.de/jpgs/grosses_ochsenauge_ausschnitt.jpg<br>

The butterfly photo (<em>Maniola jurtina</em>) is cropped and taken with the Micro 60mm/1:2.8 D.<br>

P.S. Nevertheless I will not buy any DX lenses because I have a gret set of full format lenses from the F80 times.</p>

<p>Interesting thread. I am rather in the same situation of deciding between these three cameras (not travelling to India).<br>

I come from Ricoh KR-10x, and since 2000 Nikon F 80 with the MB-16. I have a fine collection of Nikkor AF lenses: 28mm/1:2.8 D, 50mm/1:1.8, Micro 60mm/1:2.8 D (my favourite), 28-105mm/1:3.5-4.5 D.<br>

I used to scan negatives and mainly slides with a Nikon Coolscan III (see my portfolio), but lately the film scanner doesn't work properly anymore and I don't want to pay a second time to fix it. Also, the quality of lab-developed slides has decreased big time. <br>

I also have a Fujichrome S 6500/fd, which has a nice face detection feature and portrait program.<br>

I don't do too much shots but I am into high quality if I buy a new camera. I need something which offers at least the quality and reliablility of my beloved F 80.<br>

I wanted to wait for a D 800, but now the holiday season is approaching and I don't want to wait any longer.<br>

I could afford the D 700 (like the FX format), and was planning to buy it. But then I read great reviews about the D 90 and D 300 also.<br>

Any recommends?</p>

 

What a great reply. And of course I will invest in new equipment to keep pace with the improvements in PN layout.

I don't like the new layout of the forums (Nikon, Site related...).

Before I could see the first 18 topics at one glance now I can see 12.

"as I have become aware of the limitations of both my camera and my lens." - Jonathan, for the stuff you shoot I see not many limitations of this great camera. Similar to you I'm into nature photography and so far I miss only one feature that the F80 (N80) doesn't have: mirror lock up for long exposures. But the D70 doesn't have either.

 

But if you love macro you might want to use a dedicated macro lens like the Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8. It magnifies 1:1 on 35mm film, is razor sharp - and can be used on DSLRs also. (Other Micro-Nikkors like the 90 or 105 mm are _very_ expensive.)

I have been to Madeira also in a September in 1998 - for two weeks. The most original and IMO crucial thing to do is the Levada walkings. Levadas are water channels. The printed guides say everything about it. If you spent 7 days do at least 2 or 3 walks. They might be a days journey each because you might have to take a bus from Funchal to get to the starting point. Some Levada walks start and end in Funchal however.

 

Most important are guided tours to discover Madeira including the interior of the island! Funchal itself is not that much interesting to a photographer as I see it. Has gotten very touristic in the last years.

 

Regarding the lens. In 1998 I only had a 50 mm. As you seem to be more into landscape photography I can't see the urgent need of 200 mm.

 

Enjoy.<div></div>

Max, the photos can't be shot on "9/10/2004" as you state. The trees show no leaves as I could see from the previews only. It would have been interesting to make some pictures from the first snow whereever you live _this year_. It must be on the Zugspitze. I also suggest no to use a wide angle lens for this kind of shots.

BTW David, even if you exhibit your photos "home-made" in a friend's house - your pictures will gain largely from a mat ("passepartout") and glass. It will make them look more professional. Think of all the efforts you made to shoot them, print them and so on. If it's a matter of money I would show less pictures but in the described way.

I'm preparing my first exhibition right now. (I let Fujicolor make digital exposures from scanned slides. Excellent quality. The best here in Germany. Because I use Fujichrome slides?)

 

I prefer glossy prints because they are sharper. But then the prints have to be mounted or fixed to have them really flat (I don't know the exact English word, German: "aufziehen") to avoid distorted reflections.

 

I made the mistake to order plexiglass because I had a wrong consultation. It's flexible and you can see nasty distortions of reflected windows and so on. I have to try to change them all to float glass.

 

The problem are not reflections like float glass will give too but distorted reflections or the milky shine of anti-reflex glass IMO.