stanley_rogouski

<p>I used the old 70-210mm non-D on a D2H back in 2005. I did notice two shortcomings.<br />1.) It was subject to pretty bad veiling flare.<br />2.) The contrast wasn't very good.<br />I have no idea how it would handle the much higher resolution of the D90.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2190/AF-S-DX-Micro-NIKKOR-85mm-f%252F3.5G-ED-VR.html">There's a new 85mm/3.5 with AFS that will work on the 40D</a><br>

<br />It's about the same price as the 85mm/1.8 although obviously not as bright.</p>

<p>I own a D90 and a D200.<br>

<br />Lately, I've been using the video on the D90 more and more. It's actually gotten to the point where, while I prefer the heavy metal body of the D200, I don't use it very much any more because I want the ability to record video while I'm out. So I take the D90.<br>

<br />I don't want to carry a dedicated video camera around. I like the function on a DSLR. I'll probably get a D7000 when it comes out. The D7000 has a far more sophisticated ability to take video than the D90.<br>

<br />If I owned Canon instead of Nikon lenses, I'd probably get a 60D for the same reason.</p>

<p>I find that the 50mm lens is an incredibly versitile focal length on a 1.5 crop sensor.<br>

If you're using a 7D, the 50 will be the equivalent of a portrait lens.<br>

I find I use my 85mm/1.8 less than my 50mm/1.8. But it really depends on what length you like to shoot at.</p>

<p>Craig. You're basically saying "if you're not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to hide."</p>

<p>Couldn't you use that same rationalization for the East German police state.</p>

<p>The Stasi was spying on the majority of the East German people. Since only a tiny minority of the East German people were CIA agents, Neo Nazis or gangsters, that meant the vast majority of people the Stasi were watching were innocent people who "had nothing to hide."</p>

<p>So more power to the people who signed up to watch their neighbors, right?</p>

<p>I don't buy it. The FBI had been harassing King for years. Hoover was obsessed with the Civil Rights movement. There was also an extended period of time where Hoover instructed his agents not to warn King about death threats.</p>

<p>This was not only a betrayal, it's a sobering thought for Americans who actually believe they live in a "free country."<br>

<br /><br />Hoover denied the existence of organized crime in the 1950s. Every dollar that went to scam artists like Whithers (if indeed he was only a scam artist) was another dollar of your tax money not being used to track down murderers, rapists, and gangsters.</p>

<p>It just seems peculiarly sinister to me that in the Soviet Union nobody had any delusions that the KGB was anything but the secret police. But in the United States we've been brainwashed to think our own secret police is a genuine police force dedicated to fighting crime.</p>

<p>How is it harmless?</p>

<p>This kind of thing makes it more difficult for honest photographers who document social movements. It associates having a camera with being a cop.</p>

<p>I keep thinking of the German movie "The Lives of Others."<br /><br />A dried up little Stasi agent is sent by the East German government to spy on a renowned play write and his beautiful actress wife. During the course of the movie, he falls more and more in love with the actress until, by the end, he's willing to ruin his career in order to help her husband stay out of jail.<br /><br />Looking at Whither's photos, I can't but help think that at least a part of him had a similar change of heart. On the other hand, he was with King when King was assassinated, and, instead of denouncing his ties to the FBI, he kept them secret.</p>

<p>D200, Sigma 10-20mm, NYC<br>

<img src="http://www.rogouski.com/photos/511073259_fGknT-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="536" /></p>

 

<p>Has anybody compared the results of the 70-200 on FX to the 180mm/2.8 prime?</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>

 

<i>I think that "Rangefinder Style" is purposely vague. I challenge anyone to define it and have more than 90% of this forum agree :-) </i>

 

</p>

 

<p>I shoot a lot of street demonstrations, anti-war protests, and similar events and what I tend to see is this. </p>

 

<p>The wire photographers tend to carry two bodies, two D1Xs or two 10Ds or whatever. One one body, they have an 80-200 lens. On another they have a 17-35 lens. </p>

 

<p>This is what they look like.

</p>

 

<p><img src = http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2668088-lg.jpg></p>

 

<p>They tend to crowd together and they tend to take the same types of photos, tightly cropped headshots with the 80-200s and "interesting" wide angle perspectives with the 17-35s.</p>

 

<p>What you don't see is a lot of 35/50mm "normal" shots. As I said, they tend to bunch up in groups instead of wandering though the crowd by themselves. Now this serves a purpose, of course. They all want to sell their photos and the wire services want a certain type.</p>

 

<p>But it's very different from the kind of thing you see on Magnum Photos, where there are a lot of "normal" 35/50mm types of shots.

</p>

<p><i>Somehow this all seams a bit weird to me. That this so called law officer would even allow that the film had been destroyed but what simply opening the back of the camera for a moment or two. There is much more to this story or fantasy then is put on the web page offered.

 

</i></p>

 

<p>The site with the story about the confiscation of the film at the White House has one of the best portfolios online I've seen in awhile. I'll reserve judgement on the story's veracity but he's a very good photographer. </p>

<p><i>grant . , oct 29, 2004; 12:57 a.m.

are you all on crack....these pix suck....</i></p>

 

<p>You might want to Google the name "Lukashenko". It was pretty risky to take these pictures. He's pretty much the last Stalinist dictator in Eastern Europe. +</p>

 

<p>But even if it weren't risky, the last photo, "standing for son" would be a good photo if it had been taken in New York. It reminds me a bit of some of the Gregory Scott photographs in the current edition of "Lenswork". The photo of the man's son provides endless opporunties to compare it to the "real" man standing "live" in the photo. </p>

The 24-85 and 28-105 have decent reputations but probably not so much better than the kit lens to give up the focal length and spend the money.

 

The new Sigma kit of the 18-50 and 55-200 are supposed to be excellent.

Keh is selling "bargain" rated Mamiya 6's for 950 dollars, with a lens. Is there anything about the price that should let warning bells go off? If not, that seems like a pretty good first MF camera, hand holdable and with a good reputation.

Interesting.

 

I've never had a corrupt file on my Digital Rebel, My A40, my A80, or my Sony DSC-S85.

 

I have had plenty of badly processed film and I have scratched or smudged a lot of negatives while developing or scanning them.

 

"Michael: look down a few threads to the one titled "Frequent Corrupt Files from Digital Rebel" for a peek at just some of the fun you can anticipate by switching from film to digital."

Question: Do you have a decent film scanner?

 

If you do, then maybe the thing to do is buy the Elan 7 now with the lenses you'll need, then, when the price of the Rebel drops in 6 months, buy it then.

 

If you don't have a decent film scanner, the cheapest good one you can get is a Minolta for about $300.

 

In the end, I think it's a matter of what you're comfortable with. I had a Nikon n80, a decent scanner, and a couple of very good lenses and a Canon A40 point and shoot. I simply found myself using the point and shoot more because I liked the instant feedback you get with digital.

 

So I bought the Rebel/300D. The n80 was a better camera but what did that matter. I use the Rebel more. I sold the n80 and the lenses, and bought the 17-40 and now in a year or so I'll just add a higher end body when the prices go down.

Tokina makes a 20-35/2.8 that you can sometimes pick up for $499 on Ebay. I was going to buy one before I decided on the 17-40 and I hear it's pretty good.

The 35mm/2.0 as a fast, normal lens.

I used both an n80 and a Digital Rebel.

 

Comparing the n80 with the 28-105 and the Digital Rebel with the 24-85, I'd have to say that:

 

Nikon = Better metering

Canon = Better autofocus

 

If you're used to the very precise spot metering on the n80, the Rebel or even the 10D is going to seem primitive.

 

But the USM focusing blows Nikon away.

If you have an n80 and Nikon lenses, why not try to pick up a used D100 for about 1200 dollars?

I just bought one.

 

I actually wouldn't want to spend 600 dollars for build quality in a digital SLR the way I would in a 35mm camera.

 

If you buy a Nikon F100 over an N80, you know that 35mm film will be the same in 10 years. But if there were the possibility of the film's size changing in 24 months, what good does having a heavy, durable body do you (except if you're a professional)?

 

"I have to wonder who will mostly buy the Digital Rebel? People who are serious photographers who would never have given a thought to buying a plasticky tyro-level Rebel film camera but consider a plasticky tyro-level Digital Rebel because of the *relatively* lower price? Or the same people who buy film Rebels? I wonder if the latter group stops to consider how much film and processing they can buy with the price difference and how long it will take them to break even."

I don't know if anybody else has noticed this, but I was interested

in learning more about what causes it.

 

I'm shooting a lot of Tri X Pan with a pair of fast prime lenses (the

Nikon 50/1.8 and the Sigma 28/1.8). I often use a #8 yellow filter.

 

Anyway, I take a lot of photos in relatively low light, process them

with 1:1 D76 at 9 minutes and 45 seconds, and scan them with a

Minolta Scanner as "color negatives."

 

What I find is that when a photo has been correctly exposed, I almost

don't even have to desaturate it in Photoshop.

 

But when it's a bit underexposed, it will have a real nasty reddish

quality to it. I can desaturate it, but it will always come out

grainier than I'd like.

 

Correctly exposed Tri X seems to have a pretty nice fine grain.

 

Anyway, has anybody else noticed this. I don't have an enlarger and

print my own photos. I always just scan them and use an ink-jet

printer.

I have a pro-lab I send most of my slide film to. But I also have a

local mini-lab that usually does a pretty good job with my color

print film. Anyway, I shot 4 rolls of Fujicolor Press 1600 at a

family reunion and I'd like to have it by tomorrow evening. Do these

machines that they use automatically determine the ISO of the film,

or am I courting disastor?