cliff_gallup

Does the Katz Eye change the camera's metering accuracy?

Many thanks to all for the exceptionally helpful answers -- it's greatly appreciated.

Sorry if the following questions have been answered hundreds of times, but I

have been wading through prior posts without finding exactly what I have been

looking for and being a bit overwhelmed by what I have found.

 

For the prior 20 years I have shot with a variety of 35mm and medium format

cameras. I recently bought a Nikon D200 DSLR, my first real digital camera.

The camera is great, but I am not getting the best out of it by simply

shooting Jpegs, downloading to my laptop and sending files off for printing.

I would like to shoot in RAW so that I can customize the pictures I am making,

but I cannot keep track of the dozens of software programs out there, and

would appreciate any guidance in setting up a practical workflow. One thing I

would especially like to be able to do is make black and white prints that

resemble my Tri-X/Neopan work (including simulating the effect of filters and

grain). I am not a professional, and I do not have tons of time to devote to

this, and so I would like to stick to basics. My questions are these:

 

1. What basic image manuipulation program do you recommend? The full blown

PS is too expensive and more than I need. Is Photoshop Elements the answer?

DxO?

 

2. What else do I need to work with RAW files? I have heard of programs like

Nikon Capture, but I don't know what they do or whether it is redundant if you

have, say, PS Elements.

 

3. I will need to get a new computer and have been looking at an Apple iMac.

Will I need monitor calibration software, and if so, which kind should I get?

 

4. Is there a good place to send files to be printed? I have used the

service that Apple links to, and found the prints to be too glossy and

amateurish. Or will I be better off with a printer?

 

5. Any other must-haves, e.g. noise reduction software?

 

6. Can anyone recommend any books or links to good websites that offer

digital darkroom guidance?

 

Many, many thanks.

Aside from the extra speed, how does it compare with the 18-70mm Nikkor kit lens?

I tried out my 55mm f/2.8 micro-Nikkor on my D200 today (my first use of a mf

lens on this camera) and had disappointing results. Specifically, the shots I

took all seemed to be substantially overexposed, and certainly inferior to those

from my 18-70mm kit lens. The 55mm is probably my favorite Nikkor, and I am a

bit puzzled. I shot in aperture priority mode with center-weighted metering and

auto white balance. Any idea why exposure would have been off and results

generally subpar, given how nice this lens is? Quite possibly user error -- the

manual is a little less than perfect in describing how to use non-CPU lenses.

I am still figuring out the D200, and one thing I have noticed is that shots

taken at the default sharpening setting are on the soft side. I would be

curious to know what in-camera sharpening level people apply when shooting

JPEGs with their D200.

 

Thanks.

Has anyone compared this lens with the 18-70mm kit lens set to an equivalent

focal length? Most of my photography has been with a film camera and a 50mm

lens. I recently got a D200 with an 18-70 kit lens, and am wondering if image

quality would be noticeably different with a 35mm prime lens. I have read

mixed reviews of the 35, with some claiming that it is inferior to its AIS

counterpart.

 

Thanks.

Thanks for all the great answers. One more question: this is my forst SLR autofocus camera. With my G2, I would aim at the part of a scene I wanted to be most in focus, half-depress the shutter to lock focus, and then compose and shoot. How does the autofocus work with the D200 -- do you focus then compose, or just point and shoot? Aside from the Contax G2, I've always been a manual focus person and don't really understand how these SLRs focus.

 

Thanks.

Joe, to your questions, I am an experienced film shooter and, other than my Contax G2, have shot only manual focus. I have a bunch of Nikkor AIS lenses and one AF lens, a 50mm 1.8 AF (non D). Most of my shooting is of street scenes and people (portraits, candids), very little architectural/landscape unless I dig out my Rolleiflex.

 

I don't think I have the computing power I need to store and edit RAW files, so until then i think it's JPEGs for me.

My new D200 will be arriving shortly, and I wanted to ask for a little

advice. This will be my first DSLR, and I have no digital darkroom

experience, nor do I have a computer set-up that could be regarded as modern.

(This is what has always deterred me from getting a DSLR.) That being the

case, I think I will be shooting JPEGs and doing very little processing until

I get set up properly. Can anyone advise on camera settings (sharpening etc.)

or other tips that will produce good pictures straight out of the camera? I

have read here and there that the better DSLRs tend not to be set for this,

and that images can therefore look a little soft or off without some post-

processing. Would also appreciate any suggestions for RAW and imaging software

somewhere short of the full-blown PS program. Any other D200/DSLR beginner

advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Many thanks.

Thanks.

 

Any downside to OptiBrite?

 

Also, how easy is it to install the screen yourself? I've never changed a screen (or done any wiork on a camera)?

 

Thanks again.

I recently ordered a D200 (still in transit) and, being the owner of lots of

AI-S glass, am thinking of getting a Katz Eye focusing screen. It seems that

there is an "OptiBrite" option, and I was wondering if anyone had any insights

into (i) the screens generally and (ii) the pros and cons of the OptiBrite

option.

 

Thanks.

Is there any down-side to using the Katz Eye screen? Do you need to remove it when not using MF lenses (I assume not)?

 

Yaron -- I am a long-time Contax/Zeiss shooter but own an FM3A, have just bought a D200 and am curious about the new ZF line. Do you think your ZF 50 produces images that are appreciably different from those from, say, a Nikkor 50?

Is the oily aperture blade problem with the Nikkors something that is visible on inspection? I assume that buying one rated EX from KEH would be reasonably safe -- or am I mistaken?

The Sigma 30 f/1.4 is more expensive than the Nikkor 35 f/2. Other than the higher speed and slightly wider angle, does it offer any benefit over the seemingly well-regarded Nikkor?

Thanks for all the responses. I don't shoot with zooms -- mainly I use a 50 and a 28 on my film SLRs. Sounds like the 35 f/2 Nikkor is the way to go, although it is surprisingly hard to find; seems to be out of stock most places.

Trevor, I don't know about that lens. Have you used it? Do you like it?

I recently ordered a D200 body and would like to add a prime that gives me a

normal angle of view. I have no autofocus primes or zooms. Have been

thinking about the Nikkor 35mm f/2 and the 28mm f/2.8 (each in autofocus) and

wondered if anyone had any views on which might be a better bet. Will one

lens deliver images that are appreciably different from the other? I am less

interested in the slight angle of view differences and more interested in

which is a nicer lens in terms of results (bokeh, crispness, overall "look"

etc). One further question -- speed aside, are these primes likely to be any

better than the 18-70 or 18-200 DX lenses? The received wisdom has always

been that primes are better than zooms, but I wonder if this is still the

case. One option is to get the 18-70 for the same price as the 2 primes I am

thinking about.

 

Thanks.

Anyone compared 18-70 with the new 18-200 VR?

Is the 17-55 really that big an upgrade? Its speed advantage is cancelled out by VR, and I assume it is big and heavy.

Apologies if this question has been answered already, but how do

these lenses compare in terms of optical quality? Put differently,

if money were no object would there be any reason to prefer the 18-

70mm over the 18-200mm? I am mulling buying a Nikon DSLR (either

D200 or D50) and, aside from a 35mm f/2 AF and my existing AIS

lenses, I am not sure what would be an appropriate lens. Most of my

shooting with film has been with a Zeiss C/Y 50mm lens (hence

purchase of 35mm lens to go with DSLR), but from all accounts the

recent crop of Nikkor zooms has been good and it might be worth

getting one.

 

Thanks.

I have read that with the D70, images straight from the camera tend to be disappointing and somewhat lacking in sharpness, and that for best results you need to post-process. This is why I am thinking about the D50. Am I wrong?

I'm considering buying my first DSLR. I am a fairly experienced

film photographer and would like to dip my toe in the DSLR water. I

have no knowledge of PS or other image processing and am not all

that computer literate. I am thinking of buying a Nikon D50 because

it is a relatively inexpensive introduction and because, from what I

can tell, it produces better out-of-the-camera from jpeg prints than

the D70s. (I am tempted to go for a D200 so as to use my AIS

lenses, but they are expensive and possibly more than I need at this

stage.) Any views on the D50? Any shortcomings? I anticipate that

for more "artistic" work I will stick with my Rolleiflex, but I now

have 2 small kids and the expense of shooting film (not to mention

the challenges of shooting film in low light and the hassle of

dealing with relatives who demand prints) has me interested in a

DSLR. D50 seemed like a good place to start, even though the camera

geek in me would like something a bit more hard core like a D200.

 

I am also uncertain about lenses. I am inclined to go with an 18-

70mm DX rather than the shorter, cheaper kit lens,simply for the

slightly longer range. Is one better than the other in terms of

image quality?

 

Lastly, I see that KEH is selling a new D50 plus 18-70mm kit for

$839. Does that seem like a reasonable deal?

 

Thanks.

Thanks for the replies. I have tried a few rolls of expired film and had the same result. If the frame advance is nice and smooth without film, can I infer from that that it's working properly?

The frame advance on my new-ish FM3A is smooth as butter when no

film is loaded. When I load it with film, however, the mechanism

grinds a bit and definitely doesn't feel smooth. I don't remember

this being the case with my old FE, and I'm puzzed by the with

film/without film discrepancy. Any idea what this is about?

 

Thanks.