larry n.

If you've been using the D100 you probably know this already, but just in case: shooting with the 28-80 on this camera is kind of like having a 45-120 zoom on a 35mm camera, not a range that many people need but it has its uses.

 

Similarly, the 70-300 is comparable, to a 100-400, which is quite a nice range for some things.

 

By the way, if you could indicate what you are hoping to accomplish, I think people would be able to give you some better advice.

You're not doing anything wrong. That's the way today's digital cameras are. The image size (ie the physical size of the CCD) on the Coolpix is very small compared to a 35mm film. As a result, the focal length of the lens is very short. This combination gives you more depth of field. The "problem" (if you want to call it that) is somewhat alleviated with a "professional" digicam like the D100, but only goes away with the new "full frame" cameras that are beginning to become available.

I use (and love) the 28/1.4 for what I think it was designed for: low-light photography. One of the nice things about it is that it does give you good depth of field even at 1.4, unless your subject is very close. If your subject is very close, the background will be blurry with a beautiful bokeh. If you get within a foot of your subject (which is the minimum focusing distance for this lens), faraway objects will be very, very blurry (again, with a very nice bokeh, in my opinion).

Someone said "I found MF lenses useless [with an N90] without a split image viewfinder."

 

Don't know about the N90, but the F100 has a great electronic rangefinder that tells when an MF lens is in focus.

Nikon Action Touch. The phot.net underwater primer talks about it:

 

http://www.photo.net/underwater/primer

I've often wondered whether the 85mm might not be too limited as a macro lens. For example, can you use standard attachments to increase the maximum reproduction ratio?

Hi torquil,

 

I had the same questions you had a few weeks ago. Eventually I caved in and purchased an Sb-80dx. Not because you can't find a way to do exposure compensation with the Sb-22s/F100 combination, but only because I prefer using up my brain cells doing something more useful than flash calculations. (Note, by the way, that the cheap N80 has a flash exposure compensation dial that works perfectly with the Sb-22s.)

 

Here are a couple of things to keep in mind:

 

(1) putting the camera in Manual mode, as was suggested above, puts your flash in Standard TTL mode rather than super duper TTL mode. Not necessarily a bad thing, but something to be aware of.

 

(2) I've heard conflicting views on whether the exposure compensation dial on the F100 even has any effect on the flash exposure. Only way to be sure is to try it yourself. If you do try it, please let me know.

 

(3) Your idea about using the custom function is a great one, but, as you suspected, it only works with bracketing.

 

(4) If you're a real SB-22s diehard (which, as I said, I turned out not to be) you can read how Thom Hogan uses the ISO settings to accomplish flash exposure compensation on www.bythom.com.

 

Good luck!

Itamar:

 

(1) You won't go to jail if you disobey the rule of thirds

 

(2) The Nikon flash system will expose for the object that you focus on. Hopefully someone else will explain this more, and confirm that you don't need a D lens for this to happen.

In the Nikon line, it sounds like the N80 or F80 is perfect for you. Anything less (such as N65) will drive you crazy because of random omitted features.

 

Somebody mentioned the N90. I would stay away from it. It has a few features that the N80 lacks, but it's several years older, has disorganized controls that no other current Nikon has, and is missing some of the N80's features. It's also more expensive. If you're willing to spend more money than the N80/F80, the F100 would be the next step up, not the N90.

 

Of course, nothing is really perfect, and the N80 lacks some features which might be important to you. Such as

 

--it can't use manual focus lenses

 

--it doesn't have mirror lock up (no current, automatic Nikon has this feature except for the F5)

 

--for me, I thought the size was too small

 

--it's not as well-built as the larger Nikons (but for the price who cares? You can buy 2 F80s and a few rolls of film for the price of an F100)

 

--it has a rather slow flash sync speed (1/125)

 

On the plus side, I think it's the only modern automatic Nikon that takes an old fashioned remote shutter release. The others force you to buy a ridiculously-priced cable for close to $100. I mention this because a remote cable was one of your criteria.

 

Btw, in case nobody mentioned, the F80 is the "grey market" imported version of N80. The F80 doesn't have a Nikon warranty, but only a store warranty. The F80s has a cool feature (not available on the N80): it prints exposure information between frames.

"The SB-22 far predates the F100 [and therefore you should buy the newer more expensive flash]"

 

You are way off here. Because the SB-22 predates the F100 is precisely the reason why the F100 should have been designed to run with it and not vice versa. As you know, the brains of a TTL flash system is in the camera and not the flash. With the exception of monitor pre-flash, which I'm not talking about here, all the flash needs is to respond to the camera's on/off instructions.

 

The proof: look at the N80. It was made 2 years after the F100 and it does allow you to set flash exposure compensation from the camera. Nikon was forced to design it this way because they wanted to include an on-camera flash. As a result, the N80, a later model than the F100, works perfectly with the SB-22 but the F100 does not. You want further proof? The F100 is capable INTERNALLY to do flash compensation, and it does so routinely through both its matrix flash fill system and through exposure bracketing. The only thing that's missing is a convenient button to allow you to access it. How you can argue otherwise is beyond rational comprehension.

 

Anyway, I think the subject of flash exposure compensation is overrated. Thom Hogan, who has written books on Nikon, advises on his website and his Nikon Flash Guide not to do flash exposure compensation in any TTL mode except the most basic Standard TTL.

Doing compensation in Standard TTL Mode is not too complicated, even with the SB-22, and I have discovered a way to do flash exposure compensation with the F100 and SB-22s in a more advanced TTL mode too, which I can share with you if your interest lies in finding out something new and not simply flaming. However, I'd like to experiment more with diffusing the flash rather than turning it down...after all the Nikon flash system is pretty darn good at setting the exposure level.

Albin's solution is a great one, assuming that exposure compensation in manual mode affects the flash output. Can any confirm this?

 

Of course this method only works with Standard TTL because setting the camera on manual forces Standard TTL.

 

Ilkka, here's a way to do flash exposure compensation in Balanced Matrix Fill TTL mode with the F100 and a flash such as the SB-22:

 

Set Custom Function 11 on the camera so that auto-bracketing only affects flash exposure. Set the camera on something other than manual and do everything as you normally would. Now bracket. For example, you could do 0, -0.5 and -1.0.

 

Other combinations are possible, but it's a little cumbersome and wastes film. But since Nikon chose not to put a flash compensation dial on the F100 it's probably the only way. (Btw, this is a deficiency in the F100 and not the flash, in my opinion. I hate to whine, but I suspect this is Nikon's way of forcing you to buy a flash that costs four times as much.)

"I realize the 24-85 is a new lens, but Moose liked it enough to buy it. "

 

Is there any new Nikon product that Moose doesn't like? (let me guess: he described it as "tack sharp").

 

I bought the AF-S 24-85 G. It was sharp. At first it was incredibly quiet and smooth mechanically. I returned it after a week when it started getting clunky. Couldn't imagine what it would look like in a year. (I got a used 28-85mm instead for less than half the price).

 

Post some pictures from the Galapagos when you get back!

Here's a fun question: Which of these two lenses would work better in

a place like the Galapagos:

 

(1) AF 80-400 VR (f/4.5-5.6)

 

(2) [upcoming] AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR G IF-ED w/ x2 teleconverter

 

Some of the concerns on this photog paradise:

 

(1) it's far and carrying lots of equipment is a burden. water

landings are common.

 

(2) it's a guided tour and you don't have all of the time in the

world to change lenses and set up equipment. a tripod is not out of

the question, but nice to do without some of the time.

 

(3) many animals are fairly close. some are far.

 

(4) it's generally well-light, but there are over-cast days.

sometimes you have to shoot black animals on black rock (for example,

marine iguanas sunning on the volcanic rocks or black and white

penguins hiding in the cliffs (don't ask me how they get

there..probably during high tide)).

Jeff--

 

You say in your question that you want a tilt/shift lens, "the tilt really being the only useful feature".

 

Are you aware that the Nikon 28mm and 25mm lenses do not tilt?

There are at least two AF-s lenses that will not autofocus with a teleconverter: the AF-S 24-85 G (no teleconverters at all) and the upoming AF-S 70-200 G VR (will not autofocus with T/C according to spec sheet on Nikon's website).

I've seen this problem alluded to before, but never found an answer

(perhaps because most people are using the newer speedlights?).

Here is the problem: there is no obvious way to set flash exposure

compensation in TTL mode in order to achieve a nice fill when using

this combination: F100 and SB-22s.

 

From reading the manuals, here is what I have learned. For the sake

of simplicity, assume I am using an AF lens.

 

(1) The two available TTL flash modes are (A) Multi-Sensor Balanced

Fill-Flash or (B) Standard TTL.

 

(2) There is no way to directly set the desired TTL mode. The camera

does it in the most convoluted way imaginable depending on other

settings.

 

(3) With Spot Metering and Manual Exposure, the camera chooses

Standard TTL. Otherwise, it probably chooses Multi-Sensor Balanced

Fill-Flash. I don't think anyone really knows for sure except for one

or two engineers in Japan. Some portions of the F100 manual seem to

suggest that either Spot Metering or Manual Exposure will force

Standard TTL. Who knows? To play it safe, I will set both spot and

manual when I want Standard TTL

 

Ok, if you've read this far then I think you might actually have the

answers!

 

(1) I assume I shouldn't do any flash exposure compensation with

Multi-Sensor Balanced Fill-Flash. Is that correct?

 

(2) I think I should do a -1.0 or -2.0 flash exposure compensation

with standard TTL. Am I still on the right track?

 

(3) The F100 does not have flash exposure compensation. Should I just

use the the overall exposure compensation? I have a hunch that might

work, since presumably I'm in Manual mode anyway.

 

(4) BTW (this is a big question--might have to post it separately)

which of the five TTL sensors does the F100 use during TTL (both

standard and Multi-Sensor Balanced Fill-Flash? Does it depend on

whether I'm spot metering or center-weighted?

 

What if my subject is no where near the sensor of the frame?

 

Thanks to the few hardy souls will read this whole question, and the

fewer still who will answer!!

 

Naji

I need an AF zoom in the 100+ telephoto range for wildlife and

possibly portraits, and I'm not ready to invest in the 80-200 yet.

 

The best choices seemed to be the 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED or the

older 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 (which was replaced by the 70-300mm).

 

On paper, the newer lens lens seems better: ED glass and one-half

stop wider at the low end. However, I've gotten 100% conflicting

advice. Some reviews say the older lens is optically superior;

others say no, it's the newer lens that's optically superior.

 

The one thing I know for sure is I can get the older lens a tad

cheaper used.

 

At the risk of getting more conflicting news, if anybody has any

definitive advice I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks to everyone who responded. It certainly made me look at the buying decision a little differently.

 

Something rather sudden has come up: my trusty FE2 took a bad fall this weekend. As I was eagerly running towards the beach to capture a stunning sunrise, the strap broke, and the camera crashed into the asphalt (just seconds before I would have reached the relatively soft sand). Alas, the film rewind mechanism is shot and I don't think it's going to be easy to repair because the metal underneath the rewind knob is bent.

 

So now, I'm not sure whether to look for another manual camera (either a new FM3a or a used FE2 or F3HP). This would mean having to put off purchasing the autofocus camera for a while. Which is good, because it'll give some more time to consider the advice I've received so far.

 

Ideally, I would like to fix the FE2. Does anyone know of a good repair shop in New York?

 

Thanks!

I have an FE2 and a few mostly manual focus lenses, which is a great

system for making shots when I have time to think and focus. I want

to move up to an auto focus camera soon, and my plan all along was to

stick with Nikon because I liked the quality and already had a few

lenses (although all but one are manual focus, so that's become less

of an issue). The obvious choice seems to be the F100 because the F5

is so bulky. But I'm suddenly having second thoughts because of the

following:

 

(1) Reliability. I'm getting the impression that the F100 has been

breaking down a lot. Is this an unfair conclusion?

 

(2) Brightness of prism. I checked out an F100 and an EOS 3 side by

side. Is it my imagination or is the EOS 3 prism not brighter,

larger, and generally more pleasing to look through? I sometimes

wear glasses.

 

(3) Variety of available lenses. Canon seems to have more mid-range

lenses. Nikon seems to focus on the two extremes of the market: the

$100 zooms everybody loves to disparage and the over $1000 f2.8 or

faster professional lenses. It seems this has not always been the

case. There are many used Nikon lenses that seem to occupy that vast

space betweem the $100 zooms and the pro lenses (ie. good optics,

affordable and not too bulky). Only trouble is, they lack some of

the new AF refinements.

 

I am not looking for advice on which camera (F100 or EOS 3) is

better. I am thorougly convinced that they're both better than I

need. I am only concerned about these three factors (reliability,

availablility of mid-range lenses and viewfinder) and possibly others

I haven't thought of that may rise to the same level of importance.

 

Any thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.