p_b_

The F100 will NOT do matrix metering with AI and AIS lenses, but it will do center-weighted and spot metering with them. What I like about the F100 is the ability to set the shutter speed in half stop increments and then the exposure meter in the viewfinder will show you 3 stops of under or over exposure. This is very useful for spot metering on a white shirt and dialing in +2.5 stops in manual mode. I use manual mode a lot. In fact, the F6 does not even have a 1/2 stop increment in the shutter speed, only 1/3 stop increments.

If you want high quality scans, try <a href="http://aandi.com">A&I Lab</a>. $5 to put a whole roll on a CD for 4 MB

files. For more money you can get 25 MB files.

Nikon did not have a choice considering that the Canon 5D is selling for about $1899 and a potential Canon 5D Mark II coming out soon with 16 MP, perhaps, for $3299. Stealing sales away from the D300 and D3 is better for Nikon than having Canon steal sales from the D300 and D3.

The original D700 Presentation Video seems to have come from this page:

<a href="http://www.focus-numerique.com/news_id-851.html">http://www.focus-numerique.com/news_id-851.html</a> It is much clearer here and you can actually see the D700 letters on the camera body.

The optical formula is the same for all of these lenses. Cleaning marks sounds kind of vague to me. I would want to see a photo of the glass taken with the right lighting to show the marks. I usually don't buy lenses with marks on the glass. Check with KEH.COM for this lens and get one without any marks.

I sometimes have the same problem with my 85mm f/1.4 lens and my eyes are pretty good. There is an explanation for the problem, which might surprise you. I quote from the article:

 

<p>" Modern focus screens only see through a section of lens up to about f/2.8. They simply don't see any of the light from the outer sections of the lens from faster apertures, so they don't show you the defocus you'll get at f/1.2.

 

Use the depth of field preview. You won't see any darkening until you get to about f/2.8. In other words, the finder looks as bright at f/2.8 as it does at f/1.2. You're not seeing what you'll get at f/1.2 or f/2! "

 

<p>The complete article is here:

 

<a href="http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12.htm">http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12.htm</a>

The D300 has higher maximum color saturation than the D200 <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300/color.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300/color.htm</a>

I had this exact problem with a Nikkor 300mm MF lens. I took it to a non-Nikon repair place and a man fixed it.

He said the aperture ring was not circular, may have been bumped. He used a special circular tool that expands

to make aperture rings circular.

I see absolutely no evidence of a flash in any eyes, not even the slightest pinpoint

of white. This is what I have to deal with when I shoot film in incandescent lighting

without a flash. I am able to get usable prints, however, but not great prints.

I got my first lesser quality prints from a local lab in Topeka, Kansas. However, recently I got lesser quality prints from Miller's Professional Imaging. By lesser quality from Miller's I mean that one of 3 prints was too dark and contained too much red in the face of the person. The sharpness was not too bad considering that it was a 10x13 inch print from a 35mm negative.

 

It seems that the scanners tend to put too much red in the digital files and the operator has the burden of doing color correction, which they have trouble with, sometimes good, sometimes bad. I was not expecting Miller's to scan my negatives, when they have "film prices". They said they will redo the ones I don't like, but how many times should I have to ask a "professional" lab to redo prints ??

 

Is A&I any better at making prints? I know they scan the negatives also, but I don't think they use a drumb scanner for a $10 8x10 print.

I used to get very nice prints from my 35mm negatives. Then I noticed that the

quality started to deteriorate, not as sharp, not as colorful. The reason for this, I

found out, is that my negatives were being scanned first and printed from the

digital files. It seems that digital files give photo labs an advantage of some type,

financial or otherwise. It is becoming increasingly harder to find a photo lab that

does optical printing from negatives. Can somebody tell me where I can get

optical prints from my negatives?

Miller's did say that they would rescan the film for me at no charge or they would give me credit for the amount I paid.

The Nikon 9000 handles color negative film better than the 8000. That's what I read somewhere and that has been my experience with the 8000 and 9000 that I used.

Dwayne's Photo offers: 8x12, 11x16, 20x30 and 30x45 from negatives.

I have noticed that whenever a lab scans my negative, the resultant print is not quite as sharp as a print made from the negative. I have not tried a drum scan or a scan from an Imacon 949, yet. Miller's can print full-frame with borders on their "Enlarger" type of prints, but that costs a lot more than their "Ambassador" prints. A&I prices are in between both extremes of Millers.

I'm having trouble finding a lab that makes full-frame prints from 35mm negatives

on Kodak Endura paper. Maybe other papers are good too, but I have heard that

Endura is better. For full-frame, Miller's has only 4x6 and 20x30 prints from

negatives, unless they scan the negative and print from the TIFF file. A&I looks

like the best solution so far, because they can do whatever I want, including white

borders, but nothing bigger than 12x18. Are there any other labs who support full-

frame 35mm prints from negatives?

Miller's "Professional" Imaging Lab scanned my 2 rolls of 35mm film to a CD and they chopped off too much on the left side and nothing on the right, leaving a black edge on the right. It seems that their equipment was not aligned properly.

 

They also chopped about 1/16th of an inch on the top and bottom of the negative. Yuck. It seems like they are more interested in high-speed processing than accurate processing.

 

Perhaps most of their customers are using medium format negatives and don't care if they lose 1/16th of an inch on all sides.

 

Their proofs were centered pretty well, but I would have preferred a human to do the alignment on each proof, because sometimes fingers were chopped off at the bottom when there was extra space at the top. I guess that's expecting too much from a giant lab.

When did Nikon come out with a 300D ?? I'd like to know more about it.

 

Before full-frame we shot with film, Kodak EPP, 100 ISO and made prints from slides, 20 x 30.

If you could use a light meter in the church and find out how "dark" it is,

then someone could give a more accurate answer. In the last wedding I shot, the center of the church had a reading of 1/60 sec at f/1.4 for 800 ISO, on my light meter. Without the use of flash, I was forced to use my 85mm f/1.4 instead of a 2.8 zoom. I zoomed in and out with my feet.

Miller's (http://www.millerslab.com) uses a Kodak HR500 scanner for scanning a whole roll at the time of development. However, I have not seen the results yet.

This is what I found after researching it ...

 

PRE Dec-81

 

<li>9 elements in 8 groups

<li>wt = 360 gm

<li>CRC, min dist .3m

 

POST Dec-81

 

<li>9 elements in 8 groups (same design)

<li>wt = 345 gm

<li>CRC, min dist .25m

 

 

There is one minor point concerning adding a CPU to the lens to get matrix metering. Bjorn Rorslet says that it is easy to add the CPU chip to the 0.3m minimum distance version, but very difficult to add the CPU chip to the 0.25m minimum distance version.

 

With the Nikon F6, D200, D2x, D300 D3, however you can setup the camera to provide matrix metering with this lens, as you probably already know.

Bjorn Rorslet says the 28mm f2.0 is better, http://www.naturfotograf.com.

 

Ken Rockwell says the 28mm f2.8 is better, http://kenrockwell.com.

 

I got the 28mm f2.0 for low light purposes and lack of flair. I have not compared it to the f2.8 model, yet.

Which 28mm ?? The f/2 or the f/2.8 ??

About perspective. If you shoot a model with an 18mm lens and a building is in the background, the building looks farther away than in real life. If you shoot the same model with a 300mm lens, the building looks much closer than in real life. Of course, you would normally move closer to the model when using the 18mm lens.

 

So the distance between the model and the building looks much different between the two shots. That's what I was talking about.

 

So I don't really care about what happens when you crop out the tiny center portion of a shot taken with an 18mm lens and compare that to a full frame shot taken with a 300mm lens.

 

Many photography textbooks talk about this an being different perspectives for different focal lengths.

What I said about doing head shots with 50mm lens is still valid, but perhaps not as critical with DX format as with FX, because you are not as close to the subject with the DX.

 

About perspective being related to focal length. Bjorne Rorslet said it is merely a function of distance, so I guess I was misinformed about that. I would, however, like to see a proof of that, if anyone can post a link.