wilfred_wong

those cheap ext tubs and the nikon offerings does not have electronic contacts, not only you'll lose AF, Metering, TTL flash, VR etc.. but you can't use those tubes with G lens as well.

 

For the same price of the kenko tubes, you can get a 77mm canon 500D. I've both, and both gives good quality to me. But somehow tubes are easily to change (bayonet is easy than filter thread to me) , don't need to worry about filter size but on the other hand if you use long lens filter is easier to manage than adding a not-so-good built quality tubes to a long lens. Filters gives brighter image in viewfinder too.

most lens can do. Most important thing is not to get too close to it. it's related to subject/background distant.

 

Nikon lens catalog/web used to have a series of pictures showing how perspective affect a picture. it used around 20 to 400 mm lens, showing a girl in a garden while the size of the girl in the pictures remain mostly unchanged. Too bad it's gone.

 

vertical or landscape format? depend on what kind of tree... pine or chessnut tree?

I think it depends on how you're going to use your lens. This lens can be excellent for close distant at large aperture but its corners are really bad at infinity. the bokeh is not bad but if the out-of-focus area 've bright spots (say, light bulb) they might be rendererd into strange shape.

 

if you're going take people shots (not at inifinity) it can be very good one but with some limitation.

Focusing speed is good, but i'm often feel that that sigma lens cannot "lock-on" as good as my nikkors.

the 18-70 is a good general purpose lens. should be good for decent scenic shot.

 

some like long lens for scenic shots, some (like myself) prefer wide angles. i'd suggest to make good use of the 18-70. If you want something wider, 12-24 from Nikon and Tokina are good ('ve the nikon and tried the tokina).

both need to * 1.5, DX lens or not.

 

DX 've no effects on f-stop.

 

i'd prefer the 18-135 due to the better range (esp the wide angle). i've the 24-120 VR, it's just so so (maybe even lower) on 10mp camera(i use D200, not D80).

long exposure NR is totally different from high iso NR. i turn it off just because it take me longer time to do a shot. usually it does not reduce image quality. i don't need it most of the time as i 've no noise problem with, say, a 30s exposure.

 

long exposure NR is applied to RAW. You can't changed it once the picture is taken.

 

high iso NR is just a tag in the file to tell the nikon capure/nx to apply NR when converting the NEF. you can change it when using your raw converter. it just affect the preview of the image, which is actually a jpg.

 

raw converts like the RAW convert in PSCS2 ignore that high iso NR tag.

for $250, i think you can either get a fairly sturdy but heavey tripod, or a fairly portable but not so sturdy one. What do you need?

 

$250 including the head?

i set to bulk when i clean the sensor or D100. it works, but you better be quick when doing the cleaning.

i've 85 f2 and the AF version of 85 1.4. The f2 is good but the 1.4 is clearly better. the creamy out-of-focus area produced by the 85 1.4 is beautiful.

i havn't noticed any greyish cast in the 85 f2. that was a very old lens that my dad used to take pictures of me when i was a baby so if age of the lens makes any differences mine should have affected. However, the AF 85 1.4 seems to be more colorful.

 

the 85 f2 is small and relatively very lightweight and not obtrusive. not sure if you care about that.

Picassa is quite good, but it seems difficult for me to get used to it. The problem is I've multiple sets of pictures, it automatically detect duplicate folder name... ok, i disable that feature, but their display does not show the real path i'm viewing and i don't know the path unless i click the folder name and it open the folder in explorer .... and.. it seems doesn't allow me to 've folder under folder too.

 

ACDsee 8 is good, as a long time user, ACD see is good until v5. V6 and 7 sucks....that made me trying looking for replacement (that's why i try picassa). The new version ACDsee 8 is quit good, and i can stop searching for new tools now. my only complain so far is it can't view fuji raw files and it only allow me to see a black pictures if the TIF have a mask channel...(hey, it should ignore the mask channel!! who wants to preview the mask?)

 

you can try to see if picassa is fine for you, it's free anyway. it's quite good, just doesn't seems to really compatible my way of storing pictures which i've been using for many years.You can get the 30days trial of ACDsee.

i'd suggest kenko.

 

D70 can't meter with nikon tubes. with kenko tubes, you retain all AF, AE, flash (not accurate but you can adjust) functions.

hope you can take some good pictures in Hong Kong. It's good for doing night cityscape photos.<div></div>

i used to scan a lot of film too, after i use digital... those slides are kept in refrigerator.

 

i think DSLR beat scanning slides in sharpness (velvia 50 and 4000dpi desktop film scanner). those huge files from scanner contain less data than i thought. I found that after i scanned them at 4000 dpi, i don't see lost of detail when i scale then down to 3000 dpi (that was shot with a CF tripod , velvia 50 and lens set at f11). actually i think D200 (at ISO 100, with a good lens)contains more detail than scanned 35mm slide.

 

dynamic range? film is better at bright area , 've better transition, while DSLR is a lot better in shadow. if you want more dynamic range, consider fuji S3, its RAW file are REALLY good (just too big).

 

color? i think DSLR is better than SCANNED film. i've better control too. while i miss velvia (slide, not scanned velvia), overall i prefer DSLR. DSLR is more versitle... i guess you don't want to do long exposure with velvia... high ISO on DSLR are generally better than highspeed film too.

 

no one mention about dust? life is easier with DSLR. scanner with kodakchome or B&W film is a nightmare to me.

 

overall, i prefer my D200 to F90X/F4 with film

how you transfer the files to computer? copy using windows or using NC4(which i usually use as it can creat a folder using date automatically) or other software?

i'd get the lens first. AF of D70 is not that bad for a f2.8 lens (esp 55mm at the long end), mine is rather unreliable when using lens like 85 1.4 esp using off-center AF points. D70 is not that bad for shooting events as i'd use center AF point most of the time when i shoot events.

 

if i'm shooting events, i'd love to 've the extra stop for better DOF control or more natural light. D200 gives you more resolution, but the lens will give you a different "look" of your pictures. i think D70 with 17-55 would be better than D200 with 18-70 for events. for other things like landscape, i'd choose the later.

 

assume that you'll get both eventually... the lens is less likely to 've price drop anytime soon while i'm quite sure the D200 will be cheaper a bit later. getting the lens now sounds better to me.

i feel that my D200 battery seems last longer now then when it was new. i suspect discharge the battery a few times makes the meter more accurate.

i think macro lens don't need a bellow for copying slides.

 

i use ES-1 slide dupliactor. quite easy to work with. on DSLR, i need to extend the barrel (using exension ring) to deal with the crop factor.

a macro lens and slide duplicator would be very easy to work with. I can't see the slide projector is useful.

 

it'd be better to do a preset white balance to the light source before duplication.

 

I have a 4000 dpi film scanner (and also flatbed scanner), yet i'd duplicate slides with DSLR. why? speed

 

film scanners are very slow, and even slower when you need to do HDR with scanners. DSLR can do that in seconds.

 

quality? with a very good macro lens like the 60mm micro, it's very good. film scanner 've noise too, they ain't perfect too.

 

to me, dust is probably the major issue compare to scanners with IR dust removal.

i think shooting in color have advantage.

why? because i can choose the color channel i want, just like applying color filters when doing B&W film.

 

a green ball in a red background, simply converting it to B&W just give you some grey . if you take the red or green channel only (and convert to B&W), you can clearly see the subject and background.

 

shooting in color gives you the choice to extract the color channel you want so you can better control the contrast. simple convertion to B&W can't do that.

i'd put on the rear lens cap immediately after changing lens (to me more important than front lens cap since i've filters :D ). some lens the rear elements is not recessive and not protected by the barrel (like 85 1.4) so to me it's a must to put on the lens cap immediately. for some zoom lens, no rear lens cap seems means dust can go inside the lens easily.

AF of that lens is not that bad, if not used in a F80 class body. I used that with F90X, F4, with the focus limiting function on the lens, speed is fine. when i use that on D70/D100/F75/F401, it sound like the motor is not powerful enough to drive that lens.

 

lack of tripod collar is frustrating... that became even worse when i switched to digital since FOV became narrower and easier to suffer from shake so i gotta use tripod more often. zoom creep is another problem if use that lens on tripod.

 

optically, the 80-200 is very good, although probably not the best among similar lens but that it's good enough anyway.

 

i switched to 70-200 VR. wider at the short end, VR, no zoom creep, faster and slient AF, tripod collar, better 'bokeh'. the only thing i miss the 80-200 is the pull-push design (ok, i know i'm weired, but pull-push is easier to rotate the camera when shooting) and the smallish hood. hate the huge hood of the 70-200 (well, some might that it makes them looks cool).

i'd use reala or provia. i don't think the contrast of velvia 50 is good for convert to B&W(difficult to pull shadow details).

SB-600 is good but i wouldn't suggest anyone to sell other useful items for it. it's not that expensive, you better save moeny for it rather than selling other items (which means lose money).

 

50 1.8 is quite good for indoor protraits. 18-70 is good and 've very useful range.

 

tripod? it's very useful for landscape esp when the sky is getting dark. i won't travel without one.

 

you kit is fine, don't worry too much. just take more pictures to see if you miss anything then you can ask for other suggestions. yes, a sb-600 would be a very welcome addition but i'm sure you can live without it for some while.

 

the flash(i guess my dad 've the same model at home, rarely used now) is probably the only item that i would suggest to replace...

it can work on D50 without iTTL, just the sb-600 is better and easier to use.

the photography department only shoot sports?

 

about 70-200 VR, i think it's not really necessary to 've VR. monopod and tripod would be fine for many sports situation, VR just makes them lazy. also, shooting sports need relatively high shutter speed.

 

i think it'd be good to include some cheaper gear (say, 70-300), just to let them learn to live with limitation of gears, say, they might do more panning instead of freezing the action when there ain't enough light. i think dealing with limitation of the gear is good thing to learn.

I think depend on what you shoot.

 

If you use a lot of fast lens. I think D200 is a lot better than D70. I found my D200 focus much better than D70/D100, especially when NOT using centeral AF point. D200 is my first camera with a non-CAM900 multi-AF point AF module. i guess i'll do less "focus recompose" with the D200.

 

pricewise, i think D50 is alot more tempting. I could find a grey market one (without kit lens) at around USD$480 here in hong kong.

 

the ability to use MF lens on D200 is a big selling ponit for those who 've MF lens.