ccfutbol

I just chose the 17-50 to go with my D80 and Nikon fixed focus lenses.

It should arrive later this week. I'm interested in the comment about the different versions (Chinese vs. Japanese assembly). Makes me think that I should test the lens. I'd welcome some easily applicable testing regiments that can be done this weekend. I tried the lens out in a camera store and I decided to go with it for these reasons:

-Price for the expected performance conpared to competition

-Versatility offered by 2.8 max ap (low light at events and blurred backgrounds at 50 2.8

-Image quality (from what I could determine on the camera's screen and reports on the web

-Ease of handling and smallish size (love that (!) although I wish I didn't have to get a totally different filter size) I'm just not a big fan of big heavy cameras with big long lenses, ,... not for much of my shooting and especially not for people shots. I don't mind them in landscape or sports applications. I think I'm gonna love this small 2.8 zoom. I can't believe I didn't buy a Nikon! First time for me.

-It's wide enough for fairly dramatic landscapes and it will be good for group portraits and environmental portraiture. Individual portrature will require getting in close so I'll have to work on my "relationship" skills (smile). I was pretty much in the salesman's face to get a head and shoulder's shot.

-I would have preferred 70 on the long end but I've learned to crop and that's why I went for a camera with some megapixels to spare. It was a reach to get this lens, money-wise, and the really versatile 18-200 was just too expensive for me. I'll have to make do with my 70-300 for the long end of things.

 

I don't know if any of this matches what your thoughts are Jason. This is going to be pretty close to the 28-105 I had on my film camera with sacrifice of the long end but the benefits of the constant 2.8 and a bit more wide end. I wish they had added just that little bit more reach to 55. (smile) The 18-70 Nikon was tempting me, but for a bit more money I got wider and faster. I think it's a better trade-off. Not so worried about the build quality because the Tammy has a 6 year warranty. A lot changes in 6 years and I hope it will have served me well over that stretch.

 

C. C.

Bruce, I hope you won't mind if I add a question to you question. In addition to affordable and effective cleaning materials, does any business provide an instructional video? I would think that all this stuff should be part of a package that comes with the camera, but that's wishful thinking. CC

My Nikon repair guy recommends use of the card reader. Apparently, over time, you can develop a problem in the assembly where the cable connects, and that's an expensive repair. He suggests playing it safe. Can't verify what he says, ... just passing on the info. CC

Thank you for your responses TW and Jim. I'd really like to have the 12-24 but I can't afford that and it doesn't fit in with the filter sizes I have. Something like that will probably be in my bag two years from now. I haven't seen it but I'm guessing that is'fairly hefty. TW, I am looking at the third party options, but deep inside, it's hard to do that as I got into the Nikon line because of the lens quality. From what I can tell, it looks like cheap can be good these days and simpler zoom designs, are still likely to outperform larger ranges. The 18-70 is like my old 28-105, without the macro performance. The 18-55 doesn't have the range and speed of my old zoom, but it does focus closely and it appears to be sharp when stopped down, where I will most use it. It also uses the 52mm filters I already have. Losing the range between 55 and 70 might bother me, but probably not often at all. The slow 5.5 aperture might be an annoyance but it's not a show stopper as I do have fast primes. Everything I have is relatively small and lightweight and so far I'm not hurting for options that provide good performance. The 18-55 returns me to the wide world, somewhat. I'm not sure that I'm seeing exactly the zoom lens I would like at this point, so it's probably best to go cheap and see if something really hits my fancy later. The 24-120 VR in full frame was always interesting to me, but I was afraid that I might be tempted to shoot at the 120 length where the zoom wasn't sharp. The 28-105 did a lot of things right. Perhaps the 18-70 is due for some upgrading. Maybe not. Consumers seem to be telling Nikon to go longer on their zoom ranges (18-135, replacing 18-70 as kit lens, and that 18-200 do everything lens). An 18-135 with VR would be interesting to me in the same way as the 24-120 was, and I might buy such a lens in the future. By then, I should be ready to buy a different size polarizer. The 18-55 seems to be the most practical thing to do while I wait. I do wish I could see more shots taken with it, though. I have seen folders with great shots here taken by the 18-70 (one of the photographer's in today's best pictures listing), but I'm not finding many with the 18-55. Thx. CC

I can only comment about the F3HP. I sold mine years ago and I really miss it. Someone already mentioned that parts can be had and I won't comment on collectibility 'cause I could care less about that. Why do I miss it? The viewfinder. That camera and the Leica M3! The weight and handling are wonderful. Sooo easy to compose with it. I had the screen with the architectural lines and 45 degree split prism. So precise! The film advance -- so smooth. The MLU, so easy and mechanically pleasing (I don't think you have that on yours). What I really couldn't abide was using a flash with it and the LCD readout was hard to read. But the pluses make me think back to wonderful picture taking moments. CC

From what I can tell, Elliot, I don't see anything in your shots to put me off the 18-55. I appreciate your response. On your shots, it looks like the exposure or color rendering is set up, ... or perhaps just coming off, differently. The d80 shots with 18-55 are coming out more saturated with slightly higher contrast, (perhaps a little under?), qualities that I tend to like. I use a polarizer a fair amount in my landscape and nature shots. Have you tried a polarizer on the lens? Will the "regular" polarizers I have work, or do I have to purchase a thin version? I usually order from B&H and Adorama to save a few dollars, so returning the lens is a bit of a hassle. I'll check and see what Wolf/Ritz is asking for the lens here in Dallas.

 

Still looking for more shots (smile), ... folks that have a folder or two of images they are very proud of that were rendered with the 18-55 lens. CC

Back when I got "serious" about photography, I went to Nikon and the high

quality, fixed focus route, just to begin with. Started with a 24, 50 and 105

macro. All 52mm filters, so I had one size of filters. I added a 35, also

52mm filter. Then I added 70-300 and 28-105 zooms, both with 62mm filters, and

a 300 f4, my closest thing to a big sports or wildlife lens. The 28-105, 24,

105 and 70-300, sometimes with a diopter, got the heaviest usage. All fit

nicely into a bag. The 28-105 died a while back and the 50 just died, both

accidental deaths as a result of my clumsiness. The 35 is in the shop to get

oil removed. I have to say that the 28-105 was the best all-around lens I've

used. Great for travel and hikes. Reasonable speed and macro if need be.

Using mostly Velvia and Reala film, I was very please with the color and

sharpness of my photography.

 

Now I've started into the digital slr world and I don't have anything that is

particularly wide. My 24mm is a 36mm. On top of that, I do worry more about

dust, what will all the changing of the fixed lenses.

 

I like light, small relatively affordable lenses. I also prefer not having too

many filter sizes. I was thinking of getting the 18-55 lens because it has a

52mm filter size. I miss the 28mm and 24mm perspectives. I use both a great

deal in landscape shooting, and the 28 is great for travel and people in the

environment. Has anyone got some shots taken with the 18-55 that show it to be

a good performer for landscapes (?), ... say stopped down between f8-f16. If I

were to take it to a party and shoot it at 5.6, would I be disappointed? I'm

thinking not, as I usually figure on shooting higher iso, knowing that I'm just

printing 4 by 6, or sending pics in an email attachment. Could I expect

similar results as I had with the 28-105? I've read some reviews on the 18-55

and it's a mixed bag, some like it, ... some don't. It close focuses, which is

nice. If I stop the lens down and put it on a tripod, will it give me results

that I have come to expect from my 24mm and ex 28-105?

 

I'm also wondering if I should wait and see if Nikon will produce a dx lens in

the full frame range of say 24mm - 85mm or a bit longer, ... something with a

4.5 max aperture and some macro ability. I'm planning to replace my recently

broken 50, and I wonder about waiting on such a zoom, ... or just going for the

DX18-55. Having a 28-105 type zoom would mean less worries about dust

accumulation -- less lens changes.

 

Anyone been where I am and got some advice? Also, ... I really would like to

see shots taken with the 18-55, ... something other than targets, ... real

world shots showing off the versatility and performance of the zoom. Thx in

advance. CC

Elliot, ... I'm one of the people who thought my D80 was deffective, but it was due to oil on the lens diaphram blades of the 35mm lens I was using. Sorry if I added to anyone's worries. Still relatively new to the D80 but the comparison I ran with my F5's meter show that the spot and center are getting essentially the same readings. The matrix is starting to impress me as it is making what seems like good "decisions" about the scene, but I still have to occasionally tweak it as anyone should expect. I have noticed a little variance in exposures shot at high speed, but it's something I can live with. After my experience with the oily 35mm, I wonder if lenses aren't sometimes the culprits in exposure variations.

 

It sounds like you are looking for a smaller, lighter rig. I had such a choice with my F5 and N80. The D80 is kind of a compromise in the size and weight on those two bodies and I feel that it gives me the best of many worlds. N80 or D80 with a 50 1.8 is a light sonafagun. I gotta get my 35 2.0 fixed though as the perspective is more versatile in my digital world shooting than either the 24mm or the 50mm. I'd very much like a zoom for the many practical reasons those are handy and I'm checking my options for that future purchase (probably a 28 to something, reasonable in terms of performance, ergonomics, and costs). I'll see what folks say about the 18-135 DX. CC

I posted an update on the situation but I see it didn't "take." The problem is not with the D80 body and exposure meter. The problem is with the 35 2.0 lens I was using. A close examination showed that there was oil on the diaphram blades which caused the lens to be sluggish. Since I wasn't taking pictures with my F5, ... I could see the problem results. Sorry to have scared any D80 potential batteries. Shots I have taken with my 50 1.8 are turning out well. Thanks for "keeping company" with me on this one. I was getting concerned about all the blown out imagery. I found the spot meter and center weighted meters of my D80 and F5 to be almost the same. The matrix comes up with different exposures, but nothing horribly different or completely off the scale. File that one away = remember to check the lens! Guess I'll need to save a hundred bucks to get the lens cleaned. CC

As I mentioned in my post, I know how to find and place my tonalities. I used to use an F3HP which is basically a large spot meter. I have learned the meters in my cameras. F5 matrix always seemed very close to nailing exposures on slide film (mostly Velvia)with matrix. For example, in a snowy scene, using matrix on the F5, I usually only had to compensate by +1 or so to get the snow back to white while keeping detail. It normal situations the F5 matrix metering was very reliable, the envy of one of my buddies with Canon equipment. The intelligence of that matrix meter made it a very reliable camera in a fast shooting situations. My N80 film body overexposes in somewhat of an unreliable way, but it seems more consistent than this D80. For that reason, I shoot Reala in the N80 as that print film has good latitude and it seems to like overexposure. As I stated in my post, I use the blinking lights to determine what's overexposed to the point of not registering useable information. I am learning about the histograms (RGB). Now, ... admitedly, I do like saturation and a slight underexposure can provide a boost there. What I'm seeing isn't a slight overexposure, and, ... as I've said, I've yet to see the meter err in the opposite direction. Knowing that everyone's eyes are different (there's acutally a difference between my own two eyes in viewing contrast), ... I checked my thoughts in an unbiased way with my wife. Her opinion was exactly the same as mine -- she didn't like the exposures coming straight out of the camera matrix metering. she was delighted with the ones I compensated on, ... remarking that the colors were brilliant. I told her that I had set the camera up that way as I was planning to shoot mostly landscape, colorful birds and macro. I was hoping that by bumping the saturation selections in the D80, I would get close to Velvia, ... and, when I get the exposure right, I am finding what I want on the D80 screen. I just have to translate that to the computer now.

 

As for uploading smaples to Photonet, ... I'll have to figure out how to do that. I'd like to find an easy way to size the files correctly but time is a problem for me. I'm on a short vacation right now, so it's a good time to figure some things out. Today's my last day.

 

I like the way digital allows you to get rid of your trash shots and confirm your exposure results. Confirming focus takes a little more time but that too is an improvement. At this juncture, digital isn't turning out to be faster, though, and reliability is improved because I can see the results on the LCD. With my F5, I would bracket, one at camera reading (matrix), then based on my evaluation of the what the scene would beg for, I would compensate plus or minus. If the scene contained an "extreme" situation, I might bracket three shots. Maybe I really should just bracket my shots on the D80 and keep playing. I'm hoping that in time, I'll learn this camera's meter as I have my other bodies. If I can just figure out what "makes the D80 matrix tick."

 

Okay, I just ran over to compare my F5 to the D80 -- just a ten minute test. Same lens, Aperture and Manual priority, ISO 100. Spot, Center and Matrix readings. Various subjects/scenes, indoors and out. Auto white balance. It's a bright cloudy day outside. Result on the readings: Spot = exactly the same. Center = very close (1/3 stop variance). Matrix = D80 wants around one stop more exposure and was tending to match the center readings from both bodies, which was close to spot readings. The F5's matrix metering fluctuated more. I shot a mixed light subject, tree with light breaking through it. The matrix of the F5 again called for one stop less than the D80. The D80 shot was overexposed if I'm reading the histogram correctly as the rounded mountains of color are over to the right and the green mountain is especially over on the right. The subject in this case is the green leaves, so I take it that the camera knows that this color is too hot. One stop of reduced exposure put the mountains in the middle. For my preference, I would likely put it just a tad more to the left of the middle on the histogram. I'm trying to bring the leaves back to where I see them, and most are in shadow and a deep green. Of course, due the wild contrast range, there's no way to get anything but featureless white in the light breaking through the trees, ... so the objective is to get the right color of green. As I mentioned before, the D80 camera knows that the matrix screwed up and will tell you so on the playback. The spot and center-weighted are accurate, so the basic meter is working fine, ... it's the matrix meter program that's got a problem, ... or perhaps it's just more primitive than the F5. Sometimes, ... thinking of the D80 matrix meter as a center weighted meter, you can figure out what it's going to do, but it's not that predictable and,... well, it defeats the "concept" of shooting with matrix metering.

 

I just downloaded the shots I took over the past few days. I didn't keep the gross overexposures as I was deleting as I went along. I was hoping that maybe the pictures would come out a little richer on my screen (it's not calibrated -- remember, I'm the newbie with this digital stuff). On the computer screen, the saturation and contrast went down from what I was seeing on the D80 screen, so the viewing experience isn't as enjoyable as I would have liked. It comes nowhere near Velvia on a projection screen, but I expected that. I'll try playing with the computer monitor's settings to get it to where it imitates the D80's screen which I hear tell is a fairly accurate portrayal of what's on file. I'm out of money at the moment, so I can't just now invest in a bunch of computer enhancements for my photography. Next thing for me to do is to march over to the lab and see if I can get a colorful, contrasty print from the files I've got. I'm not going to go the route of making my own prints. For the small amount of printing I will do, I think I'd rather go with my local lab as they have always done me good. I use Picasa to organize and tweak the files. I'm not looking to print really big and I should think that normal jpegs will be fine for now. At some point in my learning curve, I'll go with the large Raw files and play with Photoshop.

 

Has anyone else compared the F5 matrix with the D80 matrix? For that matter, has anyone compared the D200 matrix to the D80 matrix? CC

After pondering what camera to get for my lenses, and going by some comments

here on Photo.net, I bought a D80. It arrived a couple of days ago and I've

been playing with it. I've shot mostly in Aperture Priority and program. I

tried auto ISO but changed that to where I could set the ISO. I think I've

figured out all the custom choices and set her up like I want. I've been using

matrix metering. I've got 60 or so good shots from around the house, a park, a

and a friend's home. Very quickly I found out that the D80 over-exposes nearly

every single shot = I haven't one single underexposure when the camera's meter

was set to 0 compensation. AS a result, I now start at -.7 for every

exposure, ... but, ... really, one shot went all the way to -3 and many were

at -1 and -1.7 or so. I'm trying to figure out what is making the meter want

to add exposure. Sometimes it makes some sense but at other times it makes no

sense at all. I even find the flash overexposing in the same manner. From

what I read, I expected something of a problem, but this is much more severe

than expected.

 

I may be learning to predict when it's going to overexpose like a demon. If the

scene is lit in somewhat of a low light level, or if there are dark areas, it

will try really hard to bring everything up into a high level of brightness.

The little blinking highlights will be going bezerk. I think it's interesting

that the camera will consistently throw those alarming blinking lights at you

when it's own stupid matrix meter has selected the exposure. Doesn't it pay

attention to itself? (smile) My own matrix meter, the one in my head, is going

to have to work through (and remember!) a lot of scenes so I can get a head

start on getting the exposure right. By using the LCD screen, I was able to

get the exposures I wanted. I'm definitely hooked on this digital thing!

 

So, ... that's what the deal is. Now, ... I'm wondering. Is there someone I

should be fussing to about the meter's workings, ... like Nikon, ... or B&H? I

think I can still send the body back. Is there a way to set up your shooting

preferences that will get better behavior from the matrix (file sizes, for

example)? Is my D80 behaving worse than others out there, ... or is this par

for the course? As a corrective strategy, has anyone tried sending the body to

Nikon, asking them to recalibrate the meter so that it generally moves the

exposures over in the direction you want it?

 

CC

Hi. I just purchased a D80 with flash from B&H. The invoice does not specify

USA on the Camera, but it does specify USA on the flash. The flash has the

card I'm used to, the white one with a yellow copy. That kind of warranty card

didn't come with the D80, instead I found a white paper entitled Nikon Digital

Imaging Limited Warranty, which I mistook for a simple description of the

warranty. This paper doesn't even note the product (D80). Used to be, ... if

you didn't have that white and yellow paper, Nikon USA would not touch you

stuff. The paper they now provide basically tells you that you have a limited

one year warranty and you have to present a copy of the sales receipt along

with the paper, which they call a "warranty form."

 

I panicked when I couldn't find my white and yellow D80 USA warranty. Below is

my note to B&H and their response:

 

My order arrived today with all the items I ordered. One big problem, though.

There is no warranty card for the D80 included and I asked for and paid for a

USA body. The SB-600 warranty card was included! I see that the order form does

not say USA, but I never asked for a grey market item. I've ordered Nikon

cameras from you before and never asked for anything less than USA. CC Davis

 

B&H answer:

 

"Please be advised Nikon digital does not come with a warranty card. The

invoice is the proof of purchase. "

 

I thought I'd post this in case someone else gets alarmed as I did. CC

Thank you all for your opinions and information. There's plenty to make the d40 attractive and I'm certain I couldn't tell the difference in images, but I would definitely enjoy the D80's AF on my older lenses. I've always liked the better Nikon viewfinders (F5 and F3HP) and I think the D80 would be more enjoyable in that regard. It seems like the 18-55 would get me going without too much outlay and there's plenty of evidence that it performs well. The 18-55 uses the filters I now have. I'm thinking that there will be more options in the future and I can take my time on finding the right wide angle solution.

 

Greg I checked out the Kodak DSLR which was a surprising suggestion. I can see it being easy to make the transtion. I was looking forward to being able to change the ISO on the fly and the info I got on the Kodak camera indicated that it doesn't do so well at higher ISO's. I also shoot a fair amount of soccer and the autofocus wouldn't be what I'd need. It was a good suggestion -- you must be a good divergent and creative thinker (smile).

 

With appreciation, ... C. C.

I'm a film user with these investment: F5,N80,24 2.8,35 2.0, 50 1.8, 105

2.8macro, 300 4.0 "s", and 70-300 4-5.6. Got 52 and 62 filters and Nikon close

up lenses. Had chance to use D70 with 24-120VR and got hooked on benefits of

digital. Mainly, I want to be able to shoot a great deal and not worry about

costs. Loves are landscape and macro, but I shoot everything: travel, events,

soccer. Love 24mm for landscape. Love Velvia colors, contrast and detail.

Reviews I recently read are trashing my 24 which surprised me. Scraped

together about 1200 bucks to spend now on digital equipment. Christ what an

expensive hobby! Don't know if D40 6mp will do it for me but loved the small

camera, price, big LCD and nice click to the arrow dial. Won't AF my lenses

('cept for 300 4), and neither will D40x (sigh). If I go for D80 with 10mp, my

budget for wide angle lens coverage is reduced. I really want the wide angle.

18-55 is said to be decent performer but flat color and contrast at wide

setting. That's no good for me. Haven't heard much postive on the 18-135.

Can't afford the Nikon 12-24 or 18-200VR which most people rave about.

Uncertain about Tokina and Sigma wide options. Salesperson suggested 18-55 and

55-200VR combo on a D40, which leaves me room to get the SB600 flash, but I

worry about the report on poor color since I love color in my landscape, city

scapes, and ... heck everything. I don't know that much about digital post

processing but I know you can do all kinds of things: jack color up, increase

contrast, correct some distortion and so forth. Judging by a friend's

behavior, it's difficult to keep up with all the editing and correcting. I'd

prefer a decent result from the git-go, something I can use auto levels with.

After mulling this over, I'm thinking that the important thing is to get a

reasonably sharp lens that gets the angle of view I enjoy. I'm leaning towards

a 10-20 Tokina or 12-14 Sigma with the D40. My 70-300 will likely be very hard

to focus manually. I think I can manage the others. I've only blown up a few

of my slides to 8 by 10 prints but the many 4x6 prints I have made get comments

like: "they look like National Geographic pictures." I think it's the color

and wide angle that grabs them. I'd like some help on the best cost-performance

way to go with digital SLR photography which will give me wide angle coverage

(28mm at minimum, preferably 24mm). Thx in advance -- CC

I've got an F5 and an N80. Shoot slides in the F5 and print film in the N80. Lenses: 24, 35, 50, 105macro, 300F4"S", 28-105, 70-300. I enjoy shooting landscapes. Got the fixed focals to have quality and low light ability. Macro lens is for macro, portraits and landscape - super high quality. To be honest, with all the thinking about quality, ... when I'm in the field I find the zooms so much more user friendly. Order of use, most frequent to least frequent: 28-105, 24, 70-300, 105, 50, 35, 300. BTW, ... the macro 105 is expensive but I find that I use it a lot when I'm walking around looking for a vantage point to shoot landscapes --my eyes don't just look out, they look down for photo opportunities.

 

The ability to isolate parts of a scene makes the zooms very useful. A large format photographer can crop without losing much quality, but I feel I have to use all the available film surface. The cheaper zooms do very well when stopped down to f11 and f16 -- the sweet spot on these zooms. And they are smaller and lighter than the pro zooms. The 70-300 isn't considered the greatest, but with it I have been able to reach out and isolate scenery, producing pictures that I, and many friends, have admired. At the long end, ... it passes for a wildlife lens but it really isn't at it's best there. Not having pro zooms, or super telephotos, is also related to the budget I had for getting into photography.

 

When I got started, I was getting advice out of John Shaw books and his landscape work was done with a 50-135 and the fixed focal lengths I mentioned above. At some point, I read that his favorite lens for landscape was the 24.

 

Equipment technology and it's impact on technique change very rapidly now. You are practically guaranteed to be behind the times in a year or two after your purchase, ... but I find I still like what my equipment produces -- I'm still learning how to get the most from it. At the same time, ... I'm very comfortable with what experience has taught me. Best wishes, Julie CC

I chose to go with Nikon's 28-105 because it's rated highly. The 24-120 was tempting, but I read of distortion at the 24 end and I love my 24 2.8 fixed lends. The 28-105 covers a lot of ground and for most of my shots, 28 is wide enough (my 24 is primarily a landscape lens for me). Like many zooms, the 28-105 flares when shooting into light sources. I don't like the bulky hood (and don't have one any more), ... so I have to remember to use my hat to shade the lens.

 

My other zoom is the 70-300. There's been criticisms about it not being sharp. I find it to be sharp at the lower end of the range and it's acceptable to me at the long end because I value what it's range allows me to do with composition. What I really love about the 70-300 is the color rendition which must be helped by the ED glass. On many an occasion, I've appreciated being able to get out to 300. Most of the time, I'm shooting that lens from f8 to f16 on a tripod, but if I have to shoot at 300 and 5.6, I go right ahead. It's so light, versatile and close-focusing that I enjoy the heck out of using it. I carry a Nikon diopter to shoot macros with the lens racked out to blur the background nicely but be sure to use the hood with that combo. With a flash on camera, I've enjoyed stalking butterflies and insects. I've been pleased with the shots I've gotten. I've got a 300 F4 that is sharp wide open, and I have some good shots from it, but it's harder to use, heavier, bigger, and not nearly as versatile for trimming compositions. It's just been surprising to me to see how much the 70-300 has helped me accomplish.

 

This pair have done the job for me. Best wishes with your choice. CC

Haven't tried the Kodak UC100/400. Everyone seems to be saying the same thing about them, ... that the 400 is great, wonderful color and great grain for 400. Most people expected more eye popping color in the 100 UC than it delivered.

 

I have tried Reala and Agfa Ultra 100. I shot mostly Reala on a trip to Big Bend TX this year which I compared to Agfa Ultra 100 shots I took in the same park last year. I like them both, but the Agfa is more colorful. The Reala is beautiful with smooth fine grain. The contrast is much higher on the Agfa, making some shots very dramatic but the Reala saved my butt on those shots I had to take in bright light. I am strangely attracted by the Agfa shots, but they don't quite look real, ... sorta like overdone Photoshop. Still, ... people seem attracted to the images and I gotta say that they are some of my favorites. Reala is a beautiful film that has wonderful color, tending to be somewhat more pastel to my thinking, and tending to be a little more true to life. The way I see it, Reala is much more practical and guaranteed to be pleasing except on heavy overcast situations, while the Afga is just plain fun and exciting, guaranteed to arrest attention (grin). CC

Harvey, ... your approach to photography almost gives me the feeling of having a kindred spirit. I think the Leica forum has the most interesting postings on PhotoNet. Lots of pictures that aren't "perfect," but they are so satisfying. Anyway, ... you're right about the rules. In your shot, what might be criticized is the lighter areas that draw the eye of the frame. Somewhere I read to watch out for such stuff on the edges (and there's a little unexpected dark working it's way in on the right corner). But the dark cat holds you in. And, ... well okay, maybe the face is too centered and you could drop out more of the background, just focus on the face. But what works is the lines formed by the background that lead to the face and those wonderful eyes that are locked on you.

 

Unless you are contriving to control completely everything in a shot (which might yield a perfect photo, and one that may seem also sterile), you have to accept some of what doesn't work in a shot. Life is that way. I guess I'm a fan of found shots, instead of heavily orchestrated ones. That's what bugs me about the digital era, ... all this constant "fiddling" with an image. It seems that people are all too concerned about ratings, what people might think of them, and somebody else's standards about what is worthwile to record as an image. Loved your cat's pic. I've got two cats at the moment and a pit bull my son brought home. Wish I could upload pics but I don't have any digital cameras, scanners, or photo programs. Not yet, ... anyway. CC

During cold weather in NY my N80, without fresh batteries, went out on me and recovered later when the batteries warmed up. Important to have fresh batteries, and two sets, if you are going to work in cold weather. As many do, ... carry the extra set next to your warm body and switch them out every so often. I don't know if the 123A's are more susceptible than the double A's, which I don't use in this camera. Would like to know about that. If you practiced with it, ... you could probably figure out how often to switch them to keep working without problems showing up. Guess it could be that the battery chamber has a thin wall and is exposed to cold temps. CC

In this order: quality for the price in lenses, reliability reputation, excellence in metering, and viewfinder.

I have shot a number of rolls, ... wondering how it would stack up to Fuji Superia 400. I don't know if it was my lab, but I was getting a lot of unwanted blue cast in my Superia 400 prints. Sometimes it was beautiful, but sometimes it put me off. There's something I like in the Kodak film color and something I don't like. I'm not sure what it is. I think that the colors, like in the greens, are somehow less bold, in a pleasing way, ... but there's something a little platic-like in the colors -- that's about as good as I can describe it. Skin tones were acceptable to me. I've always like the idea that I can shoot the Fuji film in a variety of lighting situations and get decent prints. My experiment isn't over yet. A little more time with the film and I think I'll realize for what situations it will suit my purposes. BTW, ... I use a Wolf mini lab, from one of the larger stores where the lab is in a separate room. Regards. CC

Thank you one and all for your comments and suggestions. Happy Holidays. CC

Hi everyone. I recently dropped my M-3 with 135 attached. It didn't

fall far or seem to have major damage, but the lens came loose. I

found that none of my lens would stay seated in the camera. I had

already had a problem with my 50 collapsible lens not locking into

place, but the 35 and 135 were clicking into place -- not now!

Anyway, both the 35 and 135 are in pretty bad shape. I had fungus on

the 35 cleaned off, but it seems to me that I now have a lens with no

coating and heavy cleaning marks, ... so it's not the great optical

quality I'd desire. Question I have is whether or not there's

something I can do to fix the M3, ... a fairly simple home

repair, ... something to tighten back up, ... or if I need to ship it

off. If I need to ship it off, ... where do you recommend? Any idea

what the charge might end up being.

The camera and lenses are from the 50's and I have to say that I'm

not sure whether I will go the expense of repairing, or just put the

whole rig on display as a piece of history. I do miss having the

camera functional but I have other picture making machines, ...

SLR's. I like to take the M3 out every now and then -- it makes me

slow down, think differently than with my SLR rigs. I probably miss

shots with it more than with my SLR, but my thinking on lighting and

composition seems more deliberate and enjoyable. Thanks for your

thoughts and suggestions.

CC

Just got back from a trip. Yes, a camera bag is a considered a bag, ... and so is a fanny pack. I carry a camera bag, fanny pack and laptop briefcase and I have to put my wallet in my pocket and unload stuff from my briefcase to my checked baggage, just so the fanny pack can go in the briefcase. Once on the plane, I pull out the fanny pack and various items for it out of different parts of my briefcase and reassemble the thing. It's silly, really. Also, ... on my last trip I had to fly on a smaller jet for one leg of the trip, ... a Canadian something or another. They told us that new regs require that they check most of the larger carrry-ons. I saw people having their roll-on bags being checked -- these just did meet the limit of carry-ons. To deal with this, I think retro. Years ago we didn't haul on all this carry and run stuff. I just plan on getting there a few minutes early and checking anything that isn't fragile or film. It's not bad when you get used to it. I also am enjoying driving much more. (smile) Best wishes. CC

I'm not sure that you are doing that much for yourself by changing out a 28-80G lens for the zooms you are considering. All of these Nikon zooms will perform well when stopped down, as in landscape shooting, and what you have now will give you fine photographs. If you want to get more and different kinds of pictures than what you are already doing, I would get a 70-300 zoom. I use an F5 and an N80 along with 24, 35, 50, 105macro and 300ED/IF/S primes, but I also have a 28-105 and 70-300ED pair of zooms. If I had to take just two lenses on a trip, I'd probably take the zooms. I just find I work better with them than the primes even though the primes have quality edge. My light travel kit includes the 24 along with the zooms. The focal length coverage is what's important to me. The reach helps me get the crop that I want on the scene. I'm always surprised how much I use the long zoom to isolate a piece of the landscape. I bring out the 24 only when I find the 28 end of my zoom isn't cutting it. I haven't had any quality complaints on my photos which I usually enjoy in 4 by 6 prints and slides. Perhaps things would be different if I was paying for big prints, but I don't have that much wall space or money. Most of my blow-ups are to 8 by 10 and these reside in a three ring binder. On a recent trip to a mountain and desert area I shot a lot with those two zooms. My friend was also shooting with zooms, but they were all the professional models (2.8). I recall him making a comment that showed he wished he had been able to go over the 200 of his 70-200. I got some great shots where the 300 length did a wonderful job of isolating and compressing the scene. I think you would get more out of your trip by adding a long zoom to what you have. I would miss the ability to reach out into the scene more than I would miss hauling in more space with the width of the 24. You need to take a look at where you are going in Alaska and what subjects you have, what vantage points you will be able to get to, what shots you want to take. I look at travel information for the areas I go to and see what photographs are already out there. Then I visualize what I will be doing. Having done this, you can decide better what to take. If you really want to work the wide angle stuff, I like my 24 (grin) and can recommend it --also give it the edge 'cause I hear tell that it has advantages over the 24mm end of the zooms you mentioned. CC