wuyeah

Myquestion is...why she look the back of the M3? Isn't ISO dial is the only thing that you will be seeing? Which ISO usually set when you load your film.

That pose is only happen with ppl with digital camera. Models, not shooter for sure. Am I study too much or you guys feel a bit not right about this setup image.

What! My F5 with MN-30 can't even last for 3 rolls. 5 rolls tops, definatly no more than 5 Rolls. I am not kidding about it. About 3 rolls, the battery LCD will start to blink. AF won't run, Shutter can't press, all button won't work unless give a fresh feed of battery.

Anyone experienced the same problem? I got it off at 2nd hand market. How do I know if it is battery problem or F5's problem?

Hello,

I have my F5 with rechargable battery. As far as I remember.....The F5 eats the battery like crazy. In

comparison to my Canon 1VHS. I thought that was design issue.

Recently I saw from the other thread "The very early F5's tend to have some battery indicator problem. The

camera would show that the batteries are exhausted after just a few rolls."

Now I start to wonder this is what I might be experiencing.

Can someone please tell me, what should be expect from F5 that is consider normal under normal temp

condition. So I will know if mine needs a service.

AA Battery= # Rolls

Rechargable MN-30= # Rolls

Save your money to go for Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AiS if the 50mm is what you want. 50mm f1.8

AiS is also made in Japan. Same build quality as f1.4 except the rubber part. It is sharper,

lighter, less flare compare with f1.4

Well.....you just can't compare 24-70L's sharpness wtih 50mm f1.4. Prime is still prime,

50mm f1.4 is known sharper than 24-70L.

As AF/MF sharpness comparison. If you do more than 5 shots (10 in total), the result AF all

soft, then yes, you should sent it back or return to shop for exchange. Computer sensor

might make mistakes. Usually, I thought AF should be sharper, cuz sometimes i just can't

trust my eyes even with split focus screen.

I don't know I would call digital "the bright side" or "the dark side" LOL!

Congrats.

It was a thought, now I meant business. I think this F3D will be real big deal IF Nikon has

taking my word. F3D not only marked the history, a "F3 RE-BORN". The real advantage is

the size, and fully work with all lenses.

5min. ago I just sent my email to Nikon.JP. About this F3D idea. I hope after their

research, F3D will happen within 3 yrs.

I still would like to see how many of you like or dislike the idea.

Hello all, personally, I think the modern SLRs are just crazy big! They look

bulk, they even feel bulk in hand! Often I still favor the older design such

as F, F3HP, FE, FM better.

Do you think wish to see a "Retro" look of DSLR?

A DSLR that is using the body cast of F3 with out the film wind. F3D, is now

AF driven, competiable with all latest AiS MF lens. Adds power booster to

shoot 5fps+ high speed.

When I come think of it, it is not all that impossible. Except to squeeze in a

AF motor,to work the AF lens, everything else is do-able. Leica hv made their

M8 isn't it? How about a F3D/MF would you take one?

I Would like to see one. F3D/AF or F3D/MF. Do you think it is possible at all?

Would you shake your head or nod your head with this idea?

Remarkable 1VHS of course. 10 fps from HS booster.

1VHS is the mother body frame of all Pro "1" digital body. Still 1D, 1Ds still looks like 1VHS.

1V truely marked itself a legend, a "V"ictory.

p.s. EOS 3 is also a great film body, if money is concern.

Hahaha, very creative......I mighat as well sent all my lens to him and upgrade to "L". LOL

Funny that someone so desperatly what to be amount L crowd.

I am not saying 28-70mmAFS is 24-85 light too. Compare 17-35 2.8 weight and seize

with 28-70 2.8 I found rediculous. You see ppl expect the 70-200mm 2.8VR, 80-200mm

2.8 AFS weight similar as 28-70 2.8. Then why you campare 17-35 with 28-70. logically

just don't make any sense.

"F-100 with my AF-S 24-85 f3.5-4.5"

Yes, 24-85 is light. Does it provide f2.8 in low light with same quality 28-70mm? They do

not. Canon 24-70mmL is lighter but is about the similar weight as 28-70mmAFS. If it is

possible to keep f2.8 and shrink down the size, I think the leading company will do it. The

fact is, they can't. Nikon try to make 70-200mm VR smaller than Canon 70-200mm, they

have done a good job, but the lens are still not light and not exactly you would say small.

You want light, you want quality, you want build, that is what you got. Asking for the

impossible just doesn't make sense.

Consumer are just hard to please. If they want to solve the weight problem by switch

metal to plastic, ppl will say the build is not good, too much plastic. They switch the

metal to Titanium, ppl will say, it is too expansive now with leight weight Ti version.

The matter of fact, 28-70mm held perfectly balanced with F5. I carry over 9 hours in the

city, by walking (i actually never put it down or carry on my shoulder. Its always in my

hand). I don't feel it is THAT heavy. Weight isn't biggest concern, when you see great

image in lowe light but you can't shoot perfectly, that will be a regret or concern.

yes, 77mm I assume you got a Pro gear. Yes, a filter is not just a filter! it is not just a

transparent glass does nothing in front of your good lens. Bad one can cause flar,

degrade on quality. If you got a Pro gear, either choose the best filter or don't use a filter.

Lens hood will provide some sort of protection.

I know B+W are expansive. I did not believe the difference when I start. So I go cheap on

filters. Then one day I change UV to B+W UV. The B+W actually looks more transparent

just by looking into my lens. The filter glass is done so well that you thought there is no

glass by bare eyes.

Good filter or no filter....something to think about.

Yes, agree with above. Don't know what kinda photography you are shooting. Put myself

in your shoe.

Go 70-200mm 2.8L IS. due to point:

1) 24 is wide enough for my to shoot regular

2) 16-35 will have more distortion on wide. at 16mm end.

3) I found myself almost never carry 16-35mm + 24-70mm togather. Always this or that

with a 70-200mmL.

After what i said, if you need a real wide angle, you need a wide angle. Its no use to get

70-200mmL when that focal range doesn't suit your type of photo taking. Agree with

above. You have got a bit backwards. 16-35 + 70-200 actually is best 2 lens killer

combo. I found 24-70 is a better single carrying lens. (means I will not carry 70-200mm

unless I know I need it for sure.)

After I see the following link image, I wonder, what wide angle lens the photographer is using?

Is this 15mm or lower ? or 20mm, 24mm will do. Clearly can see the distortion. I assume it is a fish eye

some sort.

http://delivery.gettyimages.com/xc/200438581-001.jpg?

v=1&c=CFW&k=2&d=405954B421854B6A0D2D3C5E93FA508E10621193DB58D674

I have to comment. 28-70mm AFS 2.8 actually is not that heavy! Yes it is heavier than most other lenses. Much heavier in comparison with old Nikkors, but I am a guy who is 115lb with height 163cm, I can carry around whole day and not complain. Its heavy, but not that heavy. Usually when you carry out 28-70mm normally you don't carry anything else.

You just can't compare Zoom to prime. Its differnet animal, different kind of tool for different situation. I'll use prime in studio when I know shooting time is not a concern and constantly change lens in door won't risk camera damage. Prime still better in sharpness. Everything else, I just use zoom. Funny that I don't hv any prime in auto, I don't have zoom in MF.

If you can't adjust the weight of 28-70mm AFS, how can you lust over a 70-200mm 2.8VR G in the future :P

Ha, I am still impressed by your pictures Jennifer! Your photo work prob. will be better than most of ppl who provides you suggesions. At least I am not as good!

Now I am ashamed. Looking foward to see more of your work. Now I must go hide my head into sand.

Jennifer, by the way. Fantastic children portraits work!

After checking your photos, I am confident that you know what focal distance you feel need or lacking. You must have some thoughts when you shoot, "I wish now I have..."

$700 is a lot to burn for a great lens. Unfortunatly, EF Pro lens usually goes $900+

85mm f1.8 for portrait is another good candidate, but I doubt it will be sharper than 50mm 1.8. I still think 135mm 2L is great choice for you. Don't need to walk too close to the children if that suits your shooting habit. Personally I love to quietly observe children when they are not notice me. So they do what they do, and I'll just capture the natural moment. As portrait goes, addition to 50mm, 85, 100, 135mm are ideal. I would not go 200mm on full frame personally. 35 can also shoot great portrait, but I will use 35mm for adult, not photographing children. Get yourself, Camera and Lens to close to children can sometimes be dangerous to them if you are too focus on shooting. Accident happens, and they are just to tiny!

You seems to capture lighting situation very well. Pictures are well composed. Basically with good lighting knowledge, you can work with any lens with great result.

Too close or too dark will cause the AF to feel "Freeze". It is normal to all AF lens. All lens have min. focus range. You just have to be sure your distance is in the focus range.

If it is not because being too close or too dark....then will be more complex problem for me to tell you why.

Bob, why you have to be so serious! He just unhappy the sharpness of his 50mm 1.8 simply he just gotta a urge want to buy!

He did not as for a wide angle, or telephoto because simply he did not find 50 f1.8 not suitable for a job, he just not impressed by 50mm f1.8 anymore. A urge want to buy! and we know that he has $700 to spend on, lets just make sure his money goes right place for the sharpness.

Urge want to buy. You have been there, have you?

Here comes to your 2nd choice. EF 100mm Macro.

How can I forget about this lens. This lens is simply fantastic. It is similar or better sharpenss than 135mmL. Non of Macro lens are a bad lens, one used to say. 100mm Macro is truely put itself in a different rank than other. Its quality is better than 180 macro L. Do a search to confirm my info too. You will find no one say a bad thing about this fantastic lens except, its AF is a bit useless. But hey, who use macro lens in AF mode anyway?

The 100mm Macro is actually design to be MF friendly. The focus ring has much better feel compare with most EF lens. 100mm Macro will be my 2nd choice due to 1)AF not fast as 135L 2) it is still a stop slower. 3) 135L has better contrast in comparison,but 100mm macro is very close.

You will find 100mm Macro at price around $450-500 brand new at B&H. (Last time i check, it actually comes down a bit.) you just can't beat for the price!

50 + 135L or 50 + 100 macro. I don't think there are better choice for the sharpenss, and quality than these two lens. Any one disagree with me?

how about a "L" to make you happy! EF 135mm f2L. It is around $700.00 in used market in Mint/Like New conditon.

You tell me 50 1.8 doesn't satisfy you anymore, with the price of low $700. 135L is the only lens to suit your stomach, and yes, you will be a very happy man. It is better than 50mm in every way and you gain the length. 50 & 135 is a classic combo to do photo journelism.

Do a search. 135mmL is perhaps the sharpest, the best lens in Canon line. It is not as popular simply first, it is prime. second it is not white. Most ppl rather loose the quality to go for 70-200mm for zoom flex and a white lens. You will regret not to get it and get anything else. I can tell you, nothing in $700.00 range will make you happy in quality. 135mmL in 2nd market is a much smarter choice. You will love it.