kevin_hunt

Of course my workflow accounts for the limits of point and shoot digicams. It's called my

D100. I'm done scanning film. I've got boxes of old negatives and slides remaining to be

scanned and I'm not adding to that because I'm obviously planning to use this camera

after the trip as well. Let me be clear, I'm looking for the best point-and-shoot digital

camera in its class currently available with the aforementioned qualities. Of course it's not

as good as say, a Hasselblad on a tripod but that wouldn't accomplish my objectives.

(Unless someone has a Hasselblad that I can fit in my pocket for $200-300. For that I

would go back to scanning film :)

Thanks again for your time.

I don't want AA batteries because that means that I've got to lug a AA battery charger

around with me. That takes up space and I'm only taking a backpack so I've got to be

space efficient. I'd rather just have a cord that plugs into the wall. Keep in mind that I don't

have a problem with batteries- it's just a space issue.

As for a film camera, there are some advantages to using film but for my workflow and

preferences working with digital has far more pros than cons for me.

Lastly, I don't have my heart set on 4 mega-pixel. It's just a number that seems would give

good enough quality considering my price objectives.

I've been looking at the Canon PowerShot S410 Digital Elph and that seems like a

reasonable option. Any thoughts?

Thanks for your comments so far.

I'm off to Europe for 10 days and I'd like to get something much smaller than my Nikon

D100 for when I go out at night and don't want to lug the thing around. I'm looking for

about a 4 mega-pixel camera that doesn't take AA batteries, something with a strong flash

(or low light capabilities) for it's class, small and compact (must fit in my pocket), good

picture quality and battery life. I'm looking to spend $200-300 but will consider items

outside that range if they are truly spectacular. Thanks for your input.

OK, here's the scoop: I've got a D100 and an SB-28 and I'm shooting my cousin's wedding

in a month. I'd like to replace the SB-28 with the SB-800 but then thought: hey, why not

sync both? I don't have any other lighting (strobes, etc...) so this could be a big help with

regards to lighting. So my questions are: 1. Can you sync a SB-28 and a SB-800 on the

D100? 2. Does it work well- reliably? 3. What cords do I need to do this?

Thanks for any help.

Re:

"Stevan, how can you make a statement like that when PCs control more than 80% of

the consumer market place. Why do you think Bill Gates has so much money? That

statement is ignorant bliss. As for the question at hand according to Adobe, PCs

outperform Macs. See for yourself. You can look here or on Adobes Website. http://

www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/38445/38445.html"

Uhhhh, ever heard of the G5? That article compairs Pentiums to G4s (and isn't

accurate IMHO). If your going to argue please include relavant information.

I use both Macs and PCs at work (I'm in the IT field) and use Macs at home. PCs are

kind of like Pre-Fab housing: It's not pretty but good enough for most people. That

being said if cost is an issue you'll probably be fine with a PC if you've been using one

for so long. XP is exponentially better than it's predecessors but Longhorn (there long

awaited new OS) may or may not cut the mustard. The Mac vs. PC issue is quickly

becoming the Nikon vs. Cannon argument!

Good shooting.

I have a D100 and an SB-28 (and plan on eventually moving up to a DX-800.) With

the flash on automatic mode I've found that you get good to great flash coverage

about 90% of the time. The other 10% is horrible. If you need consistancy move up to

the DX series flashes.

I dont think the software is Mac OSX compatable. I know logic would dictate that 10.X

is higher than 9 but in this case I believe that your software is only useable in OS 9.1

or 9.2. Try going to www.versiontracker.com or Rollei's website and seeing if there is

an update that is OSX compatable. Good luck.

Well I for one will never go back to 35mm film. A little background: Since I have a

degree in Graphic Design I've already had alot of experience with digital images- the

hardest part was the price tag. I upgraded my 2 N80s and got a D100. My only issue

is detail- I love landscapes. This is why I plan to get into medium format in the

future. For everything else the D100 is great. A big issue missed is the "cleaniness" of

the capture. Digital cameras just do it better than a scanner. But the biggest hurdle

isn't megapixles- its education.

For decades photography departments have been treaching film so there are so many

photographers out there who understand how film works. It takes an investment in

education to learn digital, it's not easy when you first start. I do hope that people to

start learning at least basic photoshop because at the rate digital is advancing by the

end of the decade the vast majority of us will be shooting digital and film and

processing will become so expensive that professional photographers won't be able

to compete on a price (overhead) level.

Good shooting!

Come Christmas time I'm going to be treating myself to a DSLR. Now if I can only

figure out which one I want :)

I'm leaning twards the D100 simply because it's $500 cheaper. The D100 also has 1/

180 flash sync which puts it a step ahead. So a few questions: the S2 has ISO 100 and

160- are these better than Nikons ISO 200? Is the focusing faster with the S2? I have

2 N80s and I've heard the the D100 has the same focus speed and I would very much

like to have a faster camera. Is the "interpolated resolution" that much better, if at all?

I've heard the overall image quality is better but after seeing some tests it doesn't

seem to be that much better, opinions?

Also, If I get the S2 I don't have to worry about selling my SB-28 flash and getting a

new one so that will save me a little $. The big questions are the focus speed and the

ISO quality at each camera's low ISO. Thanks for any help.

-Kevin

Whats the difference between a macro lense and the 1x, 2x, 3x, etc... close-up filters.

Does one offer higher quality than the other. Does on brand of filter offer better

quality than the other? While I've never gotten into macro photography it's mostly due

to the fact that I've never had the equipment to try it. I often find that I'd love to get

closer to something with my N80 (flowers, insects...) and cannot. The close-up filters

seem to offer a cheaper solution. I'm using a 24-85 AF-S, 18-35 and 70-300 G

lenses. Is there any reason to get a dedicated macro lense and spend the extra

money. Of course, money is an issue and I would rather carry a few filters around

than a whole new lense, I like to travel light. Thanks for any help.

-Kevin

I have the lens and it wont vinyett with a Hoya UV and a Hoya thin Circular Polarizer. I

checked it at B&G with a F5 and it's fine. I've run many rolls through it in my N80 and

haven't had a problem.

If you add a SB-28 it will focus with an infrared light. The built in flash is good for a

fill flash or in case of an emergancy but if you can fit it in your budget think of

getting a flash unit for it. The difference is very noticable. I'm sure the SB-28 isn't the

only flash to use infrared- Anyone else want to weigh in on this?

PS: I've owned the N80 for a few years, incredible camera for the price, and dispite the

irritation of the focus assist light I've found that it really does help with the focusing

in very low light.

I'm using the entry-level Nikon 70-300 G lense and I'm looking to move up to

something with higher quality, faster focusing and less focus-hunting. I'm using an

N80 and I'm trying to decide between the 80-200 2.8, old push-pull vrs. new two

ring type. Cost is obviously an issue and I've seen the old version go for as little as

$300 on ebay. I've herd that optically they are the same, anyone with any

experience? Do both have ED glass or just the new version. If just the new version,

any diffrence in quality and contrast?

Most importantly, I've read in some reviews that the new version focuses faster. The

can an N80 power the old lens fast enough for sports? Some reviews say yes, others

no. The majority of my work is with nature and candids of people. It's difficult to

justify spending $300-$400 more for faster focusing. Anyone with any experience

with this?

Thanks for any imput.

-Kevin