tony bell

Don't know if anyone here knows Sarah Underhill but she passed away in the past

few days. No details, sorry. She was a wonderfully talented photographer.

I agree about the debate over archiving photos be they film OR digital. What I have come to ponder is this. My father has just officially "retired" from photo taking after sixty years and perhaps 10 to 12 thousand photographs. I view the care and keeping of these as essential but daunting given how many photos there are. I have been shooting for about 30 years and have about 5 thousand photos thus far. But half of these have been taken in the past year since I moved to digital. I believe that even speaking conservatively I will shoot perhaps 50 thousand photos in my lifetime. My oldest son is also bitten with the bug. At his age, shooting digital, I can assume given he keeps at it that he may well shoot 150 thousand photos in his lifetime. So my concern is WHY keep them? That sounds quite heretical right now but in 100 years who is going to look at all these photos? At what point do you go through your archives and determine what to keep? The historical, the sentimental, the important. I'm sure many people are like me and have hundreds of photos loved by no one but the photographer. I doubt anyone else is going to care about seeing thousands of photos of leaves, sunsets, old buildings, strangers and the like. I worry less about the data surviving over time as its RELEVANCE over time.

No release should be required for these.

300mm

I am not and never will be a professional photographer. And I don't know much about the majority of the discussion in this thread but I will reply concerning the minister's comment about wedding photography. I have been asked many times (I would estimate between 25 and 30) to take photos at various weddings locally be it for friends or friends of friends or family. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that yes I have a DSLR and shoot pretty good photographs in the opinion of the person asking. The other reason (and MAIN reason mind you) is that the price of wedding photographers is incredibly high. And before you begin preaching to me about why that is I know full well that wedding photography is a fine skill that takes a talented person with good equipment and the experience to do it right. I don't begrudge what they make. I think they earn every bit of what they charge. And it must be remembered that the price is also dictated by what the market is willing to pay. I just know that because there are people like me around who will shoot the thing for free as a favor (or wedding gift) and hand off the data to the couple to do with as they please (I have no need to keep it!) that there is one less job for a professional AND the couple is thrilled to save anywhere from $1000 to $3000 and up on their photographs. You may read this and find all sorts of faults in what I have to say. It is never the less the truth.

Lots of folks talking about the usefulness of that extra bit of speed you get with the 1.4. As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with the 1.4! It's the BOKEH. The 1.4 totally outclasses the 1.8 in this respect. That said I still say the 1.8 is a VERY good lens. I have one and LOVE it. Alas I cannot afford the 1.4. Wo is me.

It all comes down to money. If you don't care about spending it then the 1.4 is the only choice. If you don't want to put the cash out then the 1.8 is your choice. The 1.8 is a really good lens....that can't compare to the 1.4.

The 28-105 is my primary lens on my D80. It is fine for digital. I couple it with the Tokina 12-24 and have great coverage. The macro feature (which really isn't "true macro") works very well for the price. I highly recommend it.

KR runs his mouth alot. If you want to listen do so. If you do not want to listen then don't. Some things I find helpful and some things I find gratuitous at best. But aside from that I find his photos pretty dang good. Sure, they are not entirely what I would want (the heavy saturation and so on) but he takes good photographs. Take a look at his gallery that can be accessed from his website.

The first thing you always hear about the E Series lenses is suspect build quality. Hogwash. Mine is built as well as any lens I have. And yes it is sharp, perhaps not the sharpest you would ever find but plenty sharp to take wonderful photos.

Keith~ I have and use the non-D version of this lens and it is wonderful. Far from "crap".

And the hair splitting spins on and on and on and on and....

Sometimes "obsolete" can be a state of mind. The camera you buy is a tool to use to get images. It will always function as well as you utilize it (short of hardware failure). I bought a Nikon D80 about a year ago and I plan on using it until it quits and repair is no longer financially advantageous. If I use it for 20 years, great, I got my money's worth. Just because a new model comes out with this bell or that whistle does not mean you have to run out and buy it.

I want a 8-500mm/f2.8 lens.

Actually the lighting in that room is a nightmare. It is the school cafeteria with a 20 foot ceiling and florescent lights located on said ceiling. Then the stage has about 10 or 12 floodlights pointing basically down. If I don't sit in the front row I am never able to get anything worth a tinker's damn. As for the shutter and aperture, I simply had it set on Program. The camera seems to know best in this difficult setting so long as I use the proper ISO which is 800.

<div></div>

Sorry about the size thought it was small enough!<div></div>

Shot this tonight with a D80 and a 28-105 with camera set on P mode and ISO 800, no flash.<div></div>

the lens, not the camera

Kodak Instamatic 110. 'nuff said

Just an opinion here but the pink text on white is fairly difficult to read. No idea what it should be changed to. A number of colors/combinations would work.

Nikon forum anyone?

I would choose to put this thread in the Canon forum where it belongs.

I'd donate mine but they make such great bookends and doorstop.

mpix.com