angel_o.

Since you have excessive grain, it sounds like your film is terribly underexposed. Nevertheless, I made the experience with Portra that minilabs and supermarket-labs have difficulties printing this film (it usually gets a green cast) and to avoid "surprises", a pro-lab is for me the solution.<br><br>

I rate Portra 160 as "160" without problems, you might check that your camera reads the DX code of the film correctly. In addition, to get familiar with the different metering capabilities of the F80 you should switch to slide film.

<br><br>

Regards

I personally think that people got used to operating systems that have a deep need for constant upgrades. Nowadays, a firmware update is seen as a sign of "advanced technology" instead of "banana technology" (= matures at home). <br><br>

What's wrong with the D100? - Nothing at all. The G's are of no interest anymore - at least at the moment, the turn-away from matrix metering was debated, portrait lenses and zooms were questioned and now the "malfunctions" of the D100 are of interest. <br><br>

What's going to be next? Life will show... <br><br>

Enjoy!

Well, reverse-engineering is not a problem at all. You only need to know how the hell these signals from the chip are codified - unfortunately Nikon's bricolage support isn't that good, so they don't post their knowledge on the Internet. ;-)<br><br>

This is actually, exactly the problem of 3rd party lens manufacturers! They only can wait for new equipment coming out and test how it behaves and try to find out a working compromise - this compromise will never be a 100% clone of the original. Of course, their researching funds are much higher than of the normal do-it-yourselfer.<br><br>

I think that the only possible homesolution is to buy an original Nikon matrix chip of a similar lens and fit it into the manual lens.<br><br>

Head up!

If you're looking at a 300mm zoom, I'd give a vote for the older AF 75-300/4.5-5.6 push-pull zoom with tripod mount. <br><br>

<b>positive aspects of this lens: </b> <br>

- very well build<br>

- good optics (don't forget to use it without lens hood)<br>

- tripod mount<br>

- a used lens in mint condition is sold for about EUR 240,-<br>

<bR>

<b>negative aspects:</b><br>

- slow AF <br>

<br><br>

BTW, some people experienced with this lens color-fringing but that may vary between lenses. Since I haven't seen color-fringing with my sample and I'm very happy with it, I highly recommend it as an alternative to the newer 70-300 zooms.<br><br>

Happy lens hunting! ;-))

Ruediger,<br><br>

you're comparing lenses in two different leagues. The great difference in price is not only due to the better glass, more sophisticated sealing is also a big cost factor. <br><br>

Happy shooting!

Taking a look at above samples I'm realizing that the wires of my Trinitron CRT are much easier to see and more annoying than this dust speckle on your camera's CCD. I would completely ignore it until the CCD gets 10E24 speckles and a professional cleaning is adviced. Why taking the risk of scratching the CCD or giving away a brand new camera to someone that might not be in the right mood for cleaning it?<br><br>

 

Head up and happy shooting! :-)

Hi,<br><br>

maybe this <A

href="http://www.burgio-ong.freeserve.co.uk/images/nikonians/">link</A> is helps you further.<br><br>

Regards

Well, yes - I think it does matter how accurate it is. I see the different metering capabilities and their accuracy as a friendly companion that helps me taking the photographs I want. Of course, that doesn't mean I should switch off my brain and exclusively use matrix metering or spot-metering, nor does it mean that I lost the pic of my life just because my camera has less metering segments than the brand's top-model.

<br><br>

An analogon to the metering capabilities of modern cameras is IMHO the gear-box of a car. Of course, you can use all the time first gear or fifth gear and control the speed through the clutch's smoke feature, but why not shift once in a while to another gear...

Hi Tammy,

<br><br>

The meter showing in the viewfinder of the camera indicates only the exposure of the ambient light using the speed and aperture that you see e.g in the viewfinder. This metering is necessary if you want to take control over the balancing between the ambient exposure and the main subject's exposure (that in your case is lit by the flash). If you want that the light of the main subject and the background is equally balanced, use the "flash slow-sync" option or switch to M and adjust the speed and aperture as the meter indicates - don't forget: a tripod might be your best friend under these circumstances ;-)).<br><br>

Have fun shooting.

As above posters already said: the price advantage might not be that good after taxes and shipping. <br><br>

About the Tamron lens, it might be that it works or it doens't. It's a 3rd party lens and might not work with the new Nikon bodies due to possible incompatibility reasons. Upgrading to a Nikkor lens such as the 28-105 or 50/1.8 is like cleaning the spark-plugs and the carburator of your F50 too.

Evan, there's a lot of good advice in this thread. <br><br>

Just one more thing to remember: the guide number (GN) of the built in flash is 12 meters (ISO 100) or 40 ft. To calculate the maximum lightning distance just divide the GN with the aperture (e.g. with aperture f/5.6 the max. lightning distance will be d= 12 m/5.6 = 2.14 m or 7.1 ft).<br><br>

Have fun,

Just realized that the "pixels" of bill-boards are really big, aprox. 2 mm. Using above calculations, your camera is in the range (d= 2.2 mm).<br><br> Happy shooting! ;-)

I don't know the requested ppi for outdoor media but I seriously doubt that a digital SLR (or even a 35mm film) provides enough resolution to cope with this task.<br><br>

With the D100 the max. possible output resolution on a media of the given size is:<br><br>

A= 5*6 m²= 46500 inch² => resoultion = sqrt(6MP/A)= 11.4 ppi or 447 pixels per meter.<br><br>

That's not much!

Well, the "Lowepro Mini-Trekker" is very good but it'll be too small for your equipment list. IMHO, the "Classic Trekker" will be more convenient for your application.

Hi Sonya,<br><br>

not too long ago I was in your situation (though the SB-80 didn't exist...) and I decided for the SB-28 to go with my N50. Now, I'm using this flash with an F80 and I'm very satisfied with it - in few words: it's an excellent combination!<br><br>

Of course, the SB-80DX has slight improvements over the SB-28 that are worth considering (steel foot, easier mounting and locking on the camera, slightly higher guide number, modelling light, incremental drive of zoom reflector in 5 mm steps, remote slave, etc.). <br><br>

From my small photographing experience, I learned that a flash can't be powerful enough, so in your case I would decide between the SB-28 (if you need a flash right now) or the SB-80DX (if you're planning to buy a digital camera in near future and don't need a flash right now). One good thing to remember is that you can always use a Nikon Speedlight in "A" mode with all Nikon cameras. Flashes with the DX feature have additional TTL metering capabilities with digital cameras ("D-TTL": Digital-Through-The-Lens metering), the non-DX don't and have therefore, to use the "A"-mode (Automatic mode, where the flash uses its own sensor to decide on correct exposure).<br><br>

Enjoy your new Speedlight! ;-)

I second Jim's opinion.

Nathaniel, <br><br>what is actually the bad result? Over-, underexposure, blur? <br><br>What is the shooting distance, aperture, focal lenght of the lens and shutter-speed?

Hi Robert,<br><br>

in my opinion a 3/8" thread should help. Nevertheless, if you consider this solution, you should watch out for the following:<br>

- make sure that the foot is thick enough, at least 1.5x diameter of the drill size(for 3/8" => min. s=15 mm)<br>

- use definitely a helicoil-insert (3/8"-16), a thread in the al-cast won't survive the screwing and unscrewing of the lens very often<br><br>

Another possibility is to get a 8 mm steel plate in the size of your tripod head, screw it with a hexagonal 1/4" flat screw to the lens and use this new base as thread for the tripod's head. This should perform similar. Advantage: you don't modify the lens. Nevertheless, I'm just thinking if it wouldn't be easier to change the quick-release system for one with metal QR plates (e.g. Arca Swiss) and use here the hexagonal 1/4" flat screw instead.<br><br>

 

Anyway, I just found a link of a nature photographer that IMHO did a quite good job stabilizing his very big teles. Here's the <A

href="http://www.wildlifepaparazzo.de/paparazzo/selbstgemacht/allgemein/objektivab.html">link</A>.<br><br>The page is in German but I think the photos speak for themselves. He manufactured a beam that supports the front and the end of the lens with two pairs of rolls and screws the tripod foot to it. Furthermore, he fixates a quick release plate to the beam.

<br><br>

Have fun! ;-)

"Controlled environment" is pretty cool...<br><br>

I'm glad not to be the only one that doesn't take photos in the eye of the hurricane! :-)<br><br>

Have a nice day!

Duncan, I'm mechanical engineer by profession and please allow me to express my concerns why there's a serious risk of a foot-breakage. It might be that the foot looks in first place stiffer than before, but what about the effects of the working load and the bending moments over the time?

<br><br>

The problem here is that there's simply no significant amount of material left around the drilled holes. A standard recommendation in practical engineering for being on the safe side of the road, is to leave around a drilled hole a space equivalent to 2-3 times of the hole's section; e.g. you want to drill a 6 mm hole, then your material should have at least a diameter of 12mm-18mm. In this case, the screws look like being M5-M6 and the lowest section has not more than 2mm. In addition, the holes where drilled through the stress guiding radius of the foot. The result additional and superflous stress peaks in the part.

<br><br> In addition, every mechanical modification of a structure using cutting tools, such as drilling the holes themselves and cutting the threads for the screws, creates a significant amount of stress concentration in the part, and there is still no material left to "calm" the stress down. Thinking of the used material of the foot, it really doesn't let me sleep better as it is most likely aluminum cast. Cast materials that don't like stress or tensile strength at all. Therefore, I get stomach ache looking at a recommendation on how to "strengthen" the tripod mount of a big $$$ lens that in reality, is a very dubiously improvement effort. <br><br>

 

It's not a question of a good looking design, it's a question if it's going to wreck the lens and if it's worth to take the modification risk. Bjorn is payed for taking photographs and his equipment might pay off quickly. Therefore, he cannot risk to miss a $$$ bringing photograph because of the lens' shaking. But what works for him, doesn't mean that is not questionable at all.<br><br>

Of course, everybody can do what he likes best, but I'd definitely not recommend such a devaluating "improvement" with a high breakage risk. Maybe solutions such as removing rubber plates, increase the diameter of the mounting screw, mounting the camera and lens to a well manufactured solid beam bar, use a second tripod/monopod etc. are the more desirable solutions.<br><br>

Regards

I don't know about the G1227.<br> Nevertheless, the manual of my G1220 says "max. load at the center axis 8kg (=17.6 lbs), max. camera load 6 kg (=13.2 lbs)". The tripod's weight is about 2kg (=4.4 lbs). So I guess that's were the difference between those specifications comes from. <br><br> IMHO, the CF tripod is lighter and the specs should differ but maybe the "weak point" of the tripod are the joints and therefore, to go save Gitzo writes this data.

<br><br>

Hope this helps a bit.

Adding those 25 mm stainless steel bolts with undefined diameter he seriously weakened the tripod-foot - from the mechanical point of view, this solution is really bad, the foot might brake unexpectedly! Sorry, to be this harsh, but the solutions presented on his site are typical for enginneering amateurs without experience, in his words: "a joke".

Hi Robert,<br><br>

I tweaked the color curves of your image (hope you don't mind) a little bit and I've included the result in the attachment. With the original negative and of course, with a bigger scan you can do a much better job than what I did. <br><br>

 

Have fun!

Jeremy,<br><br>

it sounds like that the scanner operator doesn't know what he is doing or that he doesn't want to bother tweaking with the scanner settings. I'd recommend you to look for another store or scan the slides and negatives yourself.<br><br>

Robert,<br><br> I found out that negatives are more difficult to scan because of the orange mask. Nevertheless, you have to take definitely your time for setting up the color curves for the films you're using (of course, don't forget to save them ;-)). It will save you a lot of time in future scans and you'll be happy with the results. I recommend you to take a test photo with colors that you definitely know (e.g. make an easy composition in daylight avoinding shadows with something black, white, red, yellow), scan it and tweak the color curves in your scanner driver (btw, use the highest possible optical resolution and the highest color depth).<br><br>

Good luck and have a lot of fun!

Hi all,<br><br>

thank you very much for pointing out the streghts of either systems. <br><br>I must admit that I didn't think at all about the light-loss due to bouncing or using possible umbrellas with the flash. So I'll go in a first step for a SU-4. Nevertheless, the SB-30 is still very interesting and I really liked the suggestion to <i>"buy four SB-30 units AND a new SB-80DX. More fun than a barrel of monkeys."</i><br><br>

Err, but for latter suggestion I'll need a many very big bouquets of red roses for my wife to explain how the "monkeys" came home... ;-))<br><br>

Have fun!