larry n.

If you look on KEH, right now, they are selling two specimens of this lens that are in Ex condition. The one with a proper

zoom is $172. The one with a loose zoom... $69. That should give you an indication of how this problem is viewed.

Ronald--what adapter enables you to use Leica lenses?

Ilka, Are you up on all of the chatter on the D90 video mode? (Ability to set ISO, shutter speed and f-stop as well as rolling shutter issues).

Jason--thank you very much for that.

 

The problem is that the gel/polyester filter I have is paper thin, whereas the slot in the holder is about half a

centimeter wide. I know it seems stupid, but I cannot find a way to hold the filter in place. (!) As far as I can tell,

there is no mechanism for squeezing the filter in place (like I've seen on some other holders). There is a knob, but I

know not what it does.

Paul,

 

Thank you for digging up that thread, but the question remains unanswered. I set it aside years ago, but now I suddenly need filters again for a project, and nobody seems to know what filters to put in the darned thing.

Thanks. I'm thinking specifically of ND filters. Say I need eight stops. Is it a good idea to combine two 4-stop filters?

Has any of you used this?

 

I asked the fellow at the store (who had it in stock) but didn't know how the filter is attached.

 

There doesn't appear to be a way for the thin gelatin or polyster filter to be held in place.

I am posting in this forum because it's a Canon gadget, but the target audience at this point in time might not be Canonophiles.

 

It seems to be some sort of filter square holder, but it's not clear how the filter will hold still in there. Any ideas?

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/122625-REG/Canon_2719A002__Gelatin_Filter_Holder.html

Is it possible to stack Lee polyester filters (of the 4x4 variety)? Do they need to spaced apart or is it better if they're right up against each

other?

Arthur,

 

That's great to know. Which tool did you use to tame the highlights? Is this doable only with Coolscan scans?

You should at least consider the possibility that at least some of those urging you to buy a used D300 are planning

to sell theirs. It's a rough world out there.

 

That said, things to consider before you a buy a used D300:

 

(1) Do you need fast autofocus and more than 11 autofocus points? This is the major advantage of the D300 over the

D90.

 

(2) Image quality may or may not be the same. We won't know for sure until the D90 is been out for a while.

 

(3) Since you already have a D40, you probably already own one or more SD cards, which are not compatible with

the D300. Another hidden expense with the D300.

 

(4) The difference between 6 fps and 4.5 fps is not something to get excited about.

 

(5) Run your eyes down this chart at Thom Hogan's website and see if there are any other D300 features you can't

live without. http://www.bythom.com/currentdslr.htm

 

(6) Finally, that D-movie feature could be very, very cool.

Ilkka, how do you attach the SB to a softbox? Is it a big soft box?

"I am a bit surprised that you don't already have a VR lens in the mid-telephoto range."

 

Which of the Nikon midrange VR's do you recommend??? I didn't think they made any that are good for indoor and shallow DOF (kinda important for weddings).

"Plus, anytime you resave the original jpeg file, some quality is lost."

 

Well, you could always save the jpg as a TIFF or a Photoshop file and never lose any quality every time you save it.

 

For all you RAW fanatics out there (and I see there's alotta you), here's a question for you: What would Bresson shoot? Jpgs of course. I rest my case.

Does the license limit how many computers you can install it on, or can you have it running on all your MAC and Windows machines at the same time? Thank you for your replies.

David, that is a very interesting perspective, and I think for many questions in photography, it's all about different perspectives (pun intended) because there is no right or wrong answer to questions like this. After all, virtually every DSLR allows you to shoot in jpg, RAW or both, so there must be an iota of a reason for those options.

 

Personally, I happen to enjoy the camera and shooting aspect of photography more than the Photoshop aspect (there is nothing wrong with people who enjoy the reverse, except that they're wrong and stupid. Joking!). I am having difficulty kicking the RAW habit, though, because it's so easy to set the camera to do both jpg and RAW. Per the suggestion above, I think I may dust off the film SLR and shoot slides for a month to try and hone my exposure skills, and revive that "there is no second chance" feeling that tends to die down with digital shooting.

 

Everyone, repeat after me:

 

The future is JPG

The future is JPG

The future is JPG

For someone who's lost for words you've said quite a few!

When you buy NX2, do you get both the Windows and the Mac program? Are you forced to activate it for one or the

other platform, or can you use it on both?

As Lex points out, jpg is in a sense an experts mode whereas RAW is good for beginners.

 

I started out with RAW because I felt uncomfortable choosing my settings in-camera (especially sharpening and white balance, but also contrast, saturation, color space and others). Now that I'm beginning to figure what I want out of a shot, and with the constant improvements to the jpg engines, I am more and more confortable shooting jpgs.

 

With the built-in CA correction that the D300 and up bodies perform on jpgs, you'd be crazy not to shoot jpg with certain lenses that exhibit lots of CA.

 

That said, I sometimes shoot both jpg and RAW as insurance. I guess I'm not an expert yet.

Given the price differential, the 35-70 can't be beat, IMHO. The range is great; I look at it as a 50mm with a bit of stretch. I like to focus my photography and thinking on a fixed lens or a high quality zoom that's doesn't way a ton. I don't think I'm alone in this, but that's when I do my best photography. Have never tried it on a D3, unfortunately.

Combos in general are not a good idea. There are no economies of scale.

 

On the other hand, I saw a pretty nice photography book published once by photo-journalist who covered events like political marches. When I met the author, he had an N80 and a 24-120 (non-VR). I asked if that was his regular kit, and he confirmed that it was. Most of the photos in the book were shot with that combo. So if you capture a great photo, no one will complain about the technicalities.

Shun, problem is supposed to be at infinity, no?

"but I never observed it on 35mm film"

 

"The same problem is equally evident on film incidentally."

 

"Firstly, there is no evidence that a 24x36 film-based camera should show the same results..."

 

And the right answer is.............. Who knows and who cares. Signing off.

Arthur, I did not exactly compare KR and Bjorn; what I said is that I would have been better off reading KR's review of the 70-200 VR, which in this case turns out to be a correct statement. What was your recent experience with the NikonUSA/ServiceCenter?

 

Besides, just for laughs, read Bjorn's first review of the Nikon D2H and you'll see what I mean about the helpfulness of the reviews in general. Does a comparison with KR still seem so out of the question?

 

If you want to read those websites for entertainment, go right ahead. I have for years; in retrospect, the reviews don't stand the test of time in either case.

 

Bjorn: you could have taken the apology and run with it. Instead you accused me of making a "false statement", that on top of your rather uncharitable and gratuitous insult of Rockwell. But I foregive you; as I said before, you're a great guy, you just get too excited about Nikon gear that later turns out to be not so hot.

"People can regard me exactly as they like, but I do demand a fair treatment. You came up with an unfair and false

statement and hence I responded accordingly. Apology is accepted."

 

Nope, my statement was not unfair and certainly not false; you changed a raving review of a product to a mediocre

review when you could have tested on 35mm film to begin with. I stand by my statement and find your reviews not

very helpfully to say the least, and often misleading. Apology was for the unkind and sarcastic way the statement

was orignally expressed and not for the content of the statement (and I apologize in advance for any unintentional

unkindness or sarcasm in this paragraph).

 

Anyhow, are we sure the problem here is lack of coverage rather than some kind of field curvature?