albinonflickr

<p>Fuji S5 goes at what prices now in the US?<br>

Serious competitor? Two friends of mine thought so, recently (and bought the Fuji).</p>

<p>Robert wrote: "But you'll get a distorted perspective if you get too close. " That's what usually happens when people have their first baby anyway... ;-) ...Personally. I'm still fan of that 50mm!</p>

<p>They 've all been mentioned here already!</p>

<p>50/1.8, 55/3.5, 24/2.8</p>

<p>Love 'm all dearly.</p>

Dave Perkins wrote: "I am sure are some great images from mobile phones; Maybe we should spend a day with one and post the results on this forum?"

 

...And then regret that those great images were not taken at a higher resolution, with just a little bit more control over lighting and focusing.. ;-)

 

For me, 10Mpx was the starting point, 6Mpx I always thought of as just-not-enough. Those 10Mpx are still fine on my D200. From there on, everything is a welcome improvement.

Ilkka wrote: "I don't believe that ease of operation automatically transfers into better images. It depends on what kind of images you're looking for. [snip] I'm not saying that you're in any way wrong, it's just that it's not obvious that the easy approach is always the best. A more deliberate image may be resulting from a slower process. [snip]."

 

Ha! We should maybe devote a different thread somewhere else to this subject - it is a fascinating one on its own. For my style of working (see for example www.flickr.com/photos/albinonflickr), I usually get annoyed with tripods and cumbersome camera-contraptions beyond the point of being flexible and intuitive. At that point being 'slowed down' doesn't lead to better photographs, to the contrary. Indeed, that is a personal thing - some people love to work with large camera's on heavy tripods (admittedly, I usually carry an old Gitzo 500 around - but it gets most use from bird observation). Admittedly, on the other side of the spectrum is the 'easy approach' of just shooting away and see what is left in final selection...

 

About the workflow with larger formats film towards digital prints.. I would love to work with the 9000, but future photography investments will go towards camera's.. My 645 was always in the shadow of 35mm work and the number of slides is limited.

Ilkka wrote: "I think it's quite sad really, considering all the time and money put into using the somewhat clumsy and

very expensive medium format equipment, if you don't use proper scanning equipment and technique, you might as

well have used a D70."

 

And that is indeed why film-based medium format is 'on the way out' for me. The hassle to get the same results as a

current '35mm'DSLR camera is incomparable. I can afford to use my Mamiya 645 (which actually ALWAYS was a

hassle to use.. mmm...), but getting a Coolscan 9000 for it is just too much - work & money. There I will easily

sacrify some image resolution towards the practical use that the current crop of DSLR camera's has to offer! And I

make better images *because* it is less difficult to make them. My 645 sits on the shelve. To me, I have a pretty

good idea what to expect from a 12Mpx camera, from my experience with D200 and D300. The fact that the D700

has even better high-ISO performance and is full(35mm..)frame, makes it far from the "disappontment" with which

this thread started..! Only thing is... I don't have it yet.

François, your well-considered contribution is appreciated, as usual (here, and in the Nikon forum)!

 

"For me, the S system is conceptually (provided it keeps its promise in practice) a first step toward a truly universal photographic system many people have been looking for since the beginning of photography." ...It crossed my mind too.

 

I do hope that the R10 accepts not only the old, but also the S2 lenses (a double bayonet should be the answer), to bridge the gap between the systems.

Non-linear, mmm..? Too bad!

 

Thank you for the information.

Brilliant contribution, David! Best nightcap (sp.?) I could've wished for.

 

And yes, some camera's are so 'iconic' that the accompanying brochure is treasured too. I only have a few. The one of the late eighties with the whole line-up right up to the F501 is treasured. Nostalgia.

Altered exposure with different-voltage cells seems easily corrected by dialling in a corrected ISO/ASA/DIN value. Admittedly, I've up till now been too lazy to actually try it in my N'mat FTn and Canonets.. Subsequently, they don't see much use lately. But so do my other film camera's, I'm afraid. Thanks for the heads-up! ;-)

"Michael Seto wrote: As great a camera as the D2x was back in it's day"

 

I couldn't help smiling there! My-oh-my "its days" were only THREE YEARS ago! I do think I will bring my trusted F3T along on my next travels...

 

"it's severely handicapped in low light situations. I only use it for daylight or studio use at ISO 400 or lower. "

 

And yes, that is a completely valid point. I use the D200 myself, happily, but with those reservations - though I'd stretch 'daylight' a bit.

Gary Watson puts it exactly like I would/should have!

 

Nikkormat FT3 is nice. But does not work as 'smooth' as aforementioned F3 - considering current prices of used gear, that would be my choice #1. Second would be F100, but that is maybe way to smooth for the experience that you are considering.. ;-)

Amazing discussion about a camera that was introduced less than 3 years ago...

 

Albin [happy D200 user, frequently appreciating the merits of the D300 and saving up for the D700..]

Usually, I laugh about people having 'long toes' (as the dutch expression goes - being touchy and sensitive to crtique).

 

In your case, Buce, I completely follow your mild irritation to some of the contributions. Your question would be one I could have asked myself. And I am definately not 'a beginner' either. And - see my post above - I am certainly in favor of being the best camera.. And adding some nowadays very affordable primes. It probably is the 'what affordable zoom should I get' in your question, that set some people off... :-0

 

Interesting thread, this, altogether!

MMmm.. Many good arguments pro/con in above thread already!

 

I am one in support buying the best camera affordable and adding lenses as you go along. Certainly a camera like the D700 that accepts older (like) 24/2.8 and 20/2.8 lenses without complaints! In the film-days things would be slightly different, but this is now.

 

So, no suggestions for a wide angle zoom! The older 20-35 and 17-35 would be the obvious choices, as has been suggested above. The modern 14-24 would be the thing to save up for. I am saving up for a D700, to be used with.. The old primes! And I will try my 12-24 as well.

 

Good luck.

I can see the romance of using golden oldies on a camera.

 

I use the 200/4.0 AI on a D200 and it performs very well. Way down to f/16 and beyond, if necessary. Great for landscapes. Small. Very affordable.

My sample operated very smoothly and I loved the bokeh.

 

The aperture blades got stuck with grease, though, and I haven't used it for almost 2 years now... Shame. Having it repaired almost costs as mush as a second hand sample.. 'The coming' of a D700 somewhere in the (I hope) near future might shift my priorities back to this lens!

Josh Loeser , Aug 28, 2008; 01:04 a.m. wrote: "How strange. I solved my dilemma by purchasing... an F3. I don't actually have it in my possession yet, but I should soon."

 

Josh, congratulations! The F3 has some typical quirks too, but is in my opinion the best MF 35mm SLR there is (for my type of use, which is 'reportage' and nature photography). Do get yourself the TTL-adapter! (SC-17 ?)

For use with older lenses, the F4 is no better than the F5, in my opinion. The matrix metering offers so little over centre-metering (it is just not good enough), that the latter - available in both camera's - offers better control.

 

I own F3 and F4. The above comment somewhere that the F4 is a manual camera with in-build winder and some AF features is what it is. If you want a rugged manual camera in components (like being able to chose manual transport or MD), I'd chose the F3. For automatic functions, almost all successors to the F4 did better - and I subsequently would chose from them now, considering the current prices!! Preferably: F100, F5, F6...

 

Good luck.

Still, I am interested in this camera.

 

If image quality (please enlighten me, what is this "IQ" that I read in every 3 photo.net postings?? Is it "image quality" ? "Intrinsic?" "Internal"..) is excellent up to ISO400 at least, my interest is raised even more. 'Manual focus' is promised, hopefully through a direct ring around the lens! And the GPS feature is absolutely nice to have, for recording natural history data, for example.

 

...Should I continue saving & salivating for the D700 first?

Please Matthew, let me know how the 20/3.5 does with respect to chromatic aberrations towards the corners! I think Bjorn Rorslett already reported a great improvement with the D3, so I have my anticipations, alright ;-)

 

On the D200 that lens wasn't so good. Colour fringing at high-contrast edges was problematic.

 

Thanks in advance!

Joe A. ... Even for someone new to photography, these are interesting times, because you can acquire things easily that would be rather out-of-reach for most of us only a couple of years ago. I wouldn't discourage people to get the best (even just for the feel of it). ...And we're here to answer the questions that arise.. ;-)

The 12-24/4.0 compares well against the 24/2.8 on the D200 - equally well, I'd say. And I'm still a big fan of the prime on slide film..

 

I am very curious to know how this on a FX sensor!

 

...OK, not a very solid contribution, but I hope it is in line with your considerations..

D300 plusses over D200, from my experience (echoeing contributions from Robert Addison and Larry Anon, among

others):

 

#1 (Much) better higher-ISO performance, in my opinion from ISO400 onwards;

#2 Less chromatic aberration with older lenses, like the 24/2.8;

#3 Great(er) screen on the back.

 

If I'd have to chose now, it would be the '300 for those reasons.

Ha, Lex! Your first posting I found rather to-the-point (probably because I don't know what a DingDong is even though/because I love a good glass of wine).

 

The second one was absolutely hilarious. :-() Thanks!