dan_ling

<p>the GF1 looks like a seriously nice bit of kit perfect for your trip. Good luck on kili</p>

<p>one more</p>

<p>Some examples</p>

<p>Update:<br />I bought the f100fd a spare battery and a spare SD card. all totalled around 200. Essentially this needs to be a disposable camera. For 6 days it was sat on, crushed, bounced, dropped and generally suffered more abuse than it was designed for.<br />I am pleased with the results. I am still disappointed with some of the shots but overall it was a marvelous bit of kit for what it is. the 28mm was great for the shots on the wall but i would have rather a 24. 140mm was a little short but what can you do. The menus are a little bit clumsy to work on the fly but overall not too bad.</p>

<p>Bill firmware update v1.02 fixes (mostly) the pink band issue</p>

<p>Well I found the f100fd for a bargain price on e-bay. So I'm going with that. I decided to forego the extra expense of the f200 for the extra manual options since I'll be focused on climbing first and photography second. (more about this in a second) Also the price is right for what essentially should be treated as a disposable camera.<br>

Graham,<br>

I will post up shots post el cap from the f100fd. After having a good think about this I really don't care about or need manual controls on a wall or in the mountains. What I need is good metering and correct exposure. A fair number of mountaineering shots are going to be landscapes focused to infinity or something thereabouts. What is critical is having a good wide angle. With a strong foreground element, such as a climber, the wide angle does the mountain environment justice. After that you need something like a 80-200 depending on the range you are in. In some of the tighter south american ranges less so but in the wide expanse of the everest range its nice.</p>

<p>Luis G<br>

Thanks for the reply. Do you find the extra features of the F200EXR that much of an advantage?<br>

It seems that the two cameras share the same lens and chip. With variations occuring only in the software. So does it stand to reason that the image quality is identical/comperable?</p>

<p>Thanks didnt know about the F200 exr. Reading the review and seeing samples it looks like the f100fd with manual and AE.<br>

Not so sure on how I feel about the results of the EXR technology but I'm willing to take a chance if the price is right.<br>

Considering personal saftey will be at stake most of the time I will be happy to get proper exposure and decent framing.</p>

<p>So I'm going to be climbing el cap and the extra weight of a SLR just isn't going to hack it. But I do want to bring a camera. Wide angle is a must. The tight quarters of a big wall demand it. 24mm or less would be ideal but I can get by with a 28.<br>

This brings me to the two choices above. The f100fd as the advantage of high ISO and a little more range on the zoom. However I'm not terribly convinced of the optics or image quality. I've searched pbase and it seems to turn up alot of amateurish shots in the middle of the day under harsh light or bad party shots. Although there are some stunning examples out there.<br>

the sd880 is limited in the zoom but I've seen what appears to be more pleasing results with this one. It also has a slightly faster lens fwiw.<br>

I'm torn right now and would appreciate any feedback on either of these two cameras.<br>

Thanks</p>

Do any of the nikon camera/lenses have an equivelent feature to

Canon's FTM <full time manual> focusing. I'd really like to beable

to adjust focus without having to flick a switch

 

thanks in advance

 

erik

I'll be in Laguna beach at the end of febuary and was wondering if

anyone had any suggestions on where to go or what to see. I am

familiar with J Tree national park, but i was wondering about the

cleavland national forest or any other natural areas. i'd also be

intersted in beach and civilized areas in or around Laguna.

 

Thanks in advance

I'm the somewhat proud owner of an Olympus OM2n and I've begun the

search for a budget macro lens for it. I don't currently take alot

of macro shots but every so often the oppertunity arises.

 

My current options in my price range are a vivitar 55mm 2.8 macro or

a sigma 90mm 2.8 macro. Having read the macro section here and read

the words that there are no really bad macro lenses I was wondering

if anyone had any feedback on either of these lenses.

 

best

Follow up:

 

I opene dthe spyder and photocal package last night and followed the set up and calibration procedures.All in all I'm happy with the birghtness and contrast adjustments. However the color seems to leave something to be desired. The monitor seems to have a "warm" cast to it...almost like editing through an 81a

 

I may return the product since I have read alot about bad sensors in some cases

I've read several reviews here suggesting that the quality of this

product is less than ideal. Is that still the current consensus?

 

I'm scanning with a Minolta Scan Dual III I have a Viewsonic monitor

and I'm printing with an epson r300 and I'm looking to optimize my

preformance

What is the difference between these two products besides the price?

 

anyone have expereince with the relatively new colorplus?

I'm currently using the olympus OM2 and am considering purchasing an

autofocus SLR more for a comprehensive system than for the

autofocus, although i see its utility. My question is once I

autofocus can I tweak it manually, or do i have to switch focus

modes first?

post some samples?

 

what do they come out like? 18% grey by chance?

Yes I realize that anything short of projected light stinks I want to get the best possible reproduction. Cost is no object.

 

Any suggestions for paper brands/types?

 

 

Hey Maury lowepro4lyfe

Can anyone suggest a paper for use with my epson R300. I am

currently using Epson Heavyweight Matte. I'm satisfied for day to

day prints but I find that it really lacks the range and "pop" that

I see on my slides and or monitor.

 

I did a search and was considering ilford gallerie classic pearl?

But before I went and spent a fortune on paper samples I figured I'd

ask the experts here

Any one have any experience with it. I've read alot of rave reviews

of the 90 2.5 macro but none of the 2.8

 

thanks

thank you every one for your responses

 

emre can you really tell the difference between a print made from a 1280 and a 960 Really what I am asking is 2 picolitres really that different from 4 picolitres. I'm a biochemist by trade and i understand the size of a picolitre and its really stinkin small

Tust no one seems to be the mantra these days....

 

I was hoping i could print to frame and store long term.

 

Its disappointing to hear the maximum size off a minolta scan is 8x 10

I'm making the move to digital. I have bought a new PC and a monitor

and a scanner Minolta Scan Dual III and I'm ready to make the next

move and buy a digital printer.

 

I was considering the Epson 1280 until I saw that the 960 was of a

newer technology and I would only sacrafice speed and size of

printing.

 

Having read the reviews extensively it seems both printers are of

good quality though the 1280 seems to have a longer track record.

 

Any suggestions as to which way I should lean? And is the quality of

the prints different between the two?

so i went out and acquired a t32 and all the associated gadgets to

make it work with my OM-2n From what i can understand the out put

even on manual is full or 1/2 and or auto. And it won't fire unless

it thinks that the distane to object/aperature is correct?

 

Any advice for achieving the best fill flash results with this flash?

 

And can i use it for close up work considering the distance problem.

KL

 

There is always a compromise. Never thought about the crouching aspect. I guess the real solution is to travel light and fast.

Leica with a 35mm lens? or a pocketable digicam