donald_choi

Sounds like some kind of dust problem on the sensor, but given that this is not a DSLR, I don't know how the heck that happened. For me, when I get dust on my S2 sensor, they are more pronouced for images created with a longer exposure (low light conditions). At faster shutter speeds, the dust is not as visible.

That's the only explanation I can come up with. Sorry.

Just cleaned the CCD sensor on my S2 pro. Took me 10 seconds, one

swab and the Eclipse cleaning solution.....no problem. I don't

understand why some manufacturers make such a big deal about the

self-cleaning of the imaging sensor (maybe to avoid liability?)

Anyways, I can't justify paying a "professional technician" money to

do something that takes 10 seconds, and is soooo easy. I understand

that the sensor is delicate, but it's not THAT delicate.

Just my 2 cents for those who may feel paranoid about cleaning their

sensors.

Peter, it is obvious that the D2H is not made for you because you value high resolution so much. The D2H, in my opinion, seems to be targeted to photojournalists whose greatest values are high frame rate and an ability to buffer a large number of images. These guys can't afford to miss the shot.

As soon as you introduce high resolution, you totally compromise the above values. High resolution will lower your frame rate, and definately lower the number of images that you can hold in the buffer.

Therefore, for the photojournalist, a high resolution D2H will NEITHER be faster nor better......

That, my friend, is why the D2H is NOT a high res camera.... because it's not meant to be one.

The S2 Pro is a great camera, but Fuji really cheaped out on the LCD

cover. Why the heck would they make it opaque??? How hard is it to

make it transparent (like the D100)? And it seems like it can fall

off at any time.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions on an

alternative LCD cover that I can use that is clear....and won't fall

off easily.

Thanks!

This duck was one of the most difficult shots I have made. This

little guy was very timid, and no matter how hard I tried to conceal

myself, he somehow knew I was there. So I bit my lip, put my camera

and flash on auto-everything and went for it. I lept out of my

hiding spot and hit the shutter release.

Man, you can just see the fear in his eyes....

Actually, Robert, in AE mode, the FM3a can go beyond 8 secs. I haven't tested it's range, but it definately can go beyond 8 secs.

I had good auto exposures at 10 to 15 seconds with my FM3a.

I have a an F100 that is barely a year old. A few months ago, I

started seeing a tiny black speck through the viewfinder. No

problem....it's just a speck right?

Since then, as time went by, these specks started multiplying and now

I have 5 visible specks. I can't get rid of them! They are driving

me crazy. I tried using compressed air to no avail! A small and

gentle brush?.....nothing. These little bastards are indestructable!

Now, I know what some of you will say: It doesn't affect the image,

so why worry about it? I would tend to agree, however, I'm starting

to notice that instead of concentrating on my composition, I'm

starting to stare that these little spots..... they're mesmorizing.

I know they are not on the mirror. They are not on my eyepiece. I'm

not exactly sure where they are, but I suspect they on the focus

screen. Where do these specks come from and how do I get rid of them?

Advice is welcome. Criticism is welcome. Sarcastic remarks and

bashing? Bring it on..... : )

I don't care....I just want these spots gone!

When you explore the technical side of photography, you will find that it is all about trade-offs. For example, for film, if you want less grain, you have to sacrifice speed....if you want more speed, you have to live with a little more grain.

Same thing with depth-of-field. To begin with, in lay man's terms, DOF is the region-of-distance in front of the camera that would be adequately in focus. A shallow DOF means that there is a smaller region that would be in focus. Telephoto lenses have shallow DOF. The opposite would be a wide-angle lens, which have a very large DOF region.

The aperture is really defined as the size of the hole in the lens through which the light is transmitted to the film. Obviously the smaller the hole (eg. f/11) the less light that goes through, which is why your viewfinder is dark. However, with a smaller hole, you get an increase in the depth-of-field. When you press your DOF preview button, take a look at the objects in your viewfinder that was once out-of-focus before you pressed the button. You may find that, although darker, the objects are magically in focus. The camera would compensate for the less light by using a slower shutter speed to provide correct exposure.

It's all physics. If you wear glasses, you can test this out. If you take off your glasses, you will find that everything is blurry. But, if you take a piece of paper and you poke a tiny hole through it and look into the hole, you will find that you can all of a sudden see things in focus. Magic? No. Physics? Yes.

It's the wonderful world of trade-offs.....welcome to photography.

I believe that G lenses also communicate distance information to the camera for flash.

I agree with Ilkka. The 28-200 lenses are not that great in quality. Ilkka has listed some good choices, although I'm not sure about the 70-300mm D-ED lens....I had it for about a year and was never happy with it.

Also a good choice is the 28-105mm D lens. It's inexpensive, compact and I find that the images produced with it are superb.

Scott, I currently have an FE2, FM3A and a F100 and shoot mainly slides with the occasional negative when the need arises. I used to have a few images posted, however, I removed them as I need to reorganize my portfolio. Ian has a point though....maybe the reason why we see so many more photos from digital cameras is because it's so convenient to upload them. With film, I have to go through the process of scanning them (and I don't have my own scanner).

Anyways, I still wouldn't mind seeing some stats on the digital/film image ratio and how that has progressed over time. That would be very interesting to know.

Is it just me or are most of the photos uploaded to Photo.net

recently is made by a digital camera? I feel like I'm part of an

endangered species...you know...those who haven't started using

digital cameras yet.

I wonder if anyone at Photo.net keeps any statistics on this. It

would be interesting to see how this stat changed over the past few

years.

10x optical zoom typically refers to the focal length range of the lens. An example of a 10x zoom is 28mm-280mm. The 4x digital zoom uses a computer to "zoom in" further by digitally blowing up the picture. Obviously, the use of the digital zoom would significantly degrade the image quality, due to lower resolution, more noise, etc.

The optical quality of the lens on the C750 will no doubt PALE in comparison to the optical quality of a $1500 600mm zoom so please do not try to compare the two.

Given your information above (ie. 40x magnification = 1520mm), for a "normal" camera, the zoom range would be 38mm-1520mm. At 1520mm you can get pretty "close" to your object.....*if* you can recognize it with the poor quality of the digital zoom.

<<I see no point whatsoever in buying a camera with auto exposure and autofocus then switching it all off.>>

Harvey, sometimes I find that I MUST turn off autofocus for greater control over my depth-of-field. I find that in doing some landscape photography, my F100 tends to want to focus right at infinity and I lose a lot of DOF. So I have to set my focus manually to maximize my DOF.

However, with that said, I must admit that 85% of the time, I'm on autofocus.... simply because I'm too lazy.

Yaron, I had the same emotion when I first got my FM3A. The feeling of going backwards in time and technology....really brought back a certain intimacy with my photography.

Although my F100 has its applications that the FM3A just can't handle, I tend to grab my little manual camera when I run out the door, just because it's such a pleasure to use.

Maybe its true that all the high-tech gadgetry that are loaded into the modern-day camera has took away a little bit of the emotional connection that the photographer has with the art.

Although I love my FM3a, for a beginner, I would recommend the F80 or even better, the F100. The F80/100 features are easy to pick up and can aid in the learning of photography, as they have full manual capability as well as a spot meter.

FE2 and FM3a are excellent cameras though, however they would be more difficult to use for a beginner.

The 28-105mm lens is a very good lens to start off with as well. I use it a lot for travelling.

Has anyone ever used the 45mm f/2.8P on a bellows? I have the PB-4

and just purchased the aforementioned lens (haven't received it yet)

and am wondering what it's performance would be like on the

bellows. What sort of reproduction ratio range would I expect (in

both the normal position and reversed)? What would be the quality

of the image? Would it be good enough to to make slide copies?

I'm just wondering if anyone out there ever tried this. If not, I

guess I will know soon enough.

I have an F100 too and it's matrix metering has NEVER failed me for night shots....I'm always blown away by it. You don't need a separate light meter. If you don't want to screw up a good shot, the F100 bracketing is very easy to use.

Night shots will always need "longer" exposures (even with bright city lights) unless you have very high speed film. I would find myself naked without a tripod. I find that a Manfrotto 190D is relatively light and portable (and inexpensive). My advise is: bring a tripod. Otherwise, you'd be kicking yourself for not being able to capture some great shots.

I agree with Evan. A beginner will only get frustrated with an all-manual camera. I would say that an all-manual camera would make a worthy goal to reach, after learning with the automatic cameras. I started out with an N70, then to an N80 and to an F100 (with zoom lenses). I found that these cameras + a lot of reading/learning really helped me in my understanding of photography. Now, about 50% of my shooting is with my new FM3a, and I have been very consistent in the accuracy of my exposures and the quality of my compositions.

Throughout the whole learning experience, I have enjoyed every moment of it, because the auto-cameras (with zooms) allowed me to learn each aspect of photography, one at a time, instead of all-at-once with a manual camera.

In short, start with automatics, and end with manual. To me, it was the best way.

Good Luck!