martin_mueller2

I am very sorry, but I cannot follow the war of ideologies. That Nikon-Canon (or others) debate seems like a country that suspects Weapons of Mass destruction in another, just to have a reason to declare war. Do we still live in the medieval times or are we in the 21st century, having at least some enlightenment behind us?

May I ask to stop with ideologies but start to talk about pictures and taking pictures?

Sorry for my outdated opinion from "Old Europe"

Dear David,

I use both, F5 and D70. In case I would sell the D70. Why? Because to process digital pictures is very time consuming and very expensive: You need a quite expensive PC and very good software as well as a lot of knowledge how to process digital pictures. And don't forget about the printer and the expensive ink/paper.

It is true that you don't see the results of your shooting immediately when using a F5. But why don't you have confidence in you as a photographer? If you have the ability to "see" and know the basics of photography, there is no need to see the result at the spot - the F5 is a highly reliable tool that guarantees excellent results.

To know what you really want will answer your questions.

It seems that the discussion about the D70 is quite emotional. Please, don't forget that the photographer makes the pictures, NOT the camera. Why do we talk about pixels? Man Ray wouldn't have spoiled (correct English?) a word about it. He just would have USED the camera to show what he SEES. Kind regards

the 24/f2.8 wide-angle lens is, for sure, useful in Rome even if it still will be difficult to get good results when taking pictures of the magnificent buildings. For interiors of churches, it will be better to buy slides or postcards, because their quality is superb - you hardly can get similiar results. Anyway, at the moment the bigger problem in Rome is that your gear (including watch, purse etc.) is quite likely to be stolen by kid gangs or pick-pockets when you take your photos or enjoy the great views that outstanding city has to offer.

Hope you can enjoy your stay!

Recently I have found on an official Nikon website that the MH19

battery charger (designed for D100) can also be used with the F5

battery pack MN30 ("F5 - MN30 rechargeable battery can be charged with

the optional MCE1 cord"). As the original MH30 charger for the F5

battery pack is almost twice as expensive as the MH19, this would be

good news. I wonder whether anybody has tried to use the M19 together

with the M30 battery pack.

second sample

Here are two pictures taken with the 105 mm dc lens, scanned from the copies (in case the quality is too lousy, I can scan the negatives again with a HP flatbed scanner)<div></div>

I would wait for the D70. Anyway the technical development for digital cameras is so fast that in half a year there will always be "a better" one.

The 80-400 vr lens is excellent. With or without VR one gets incredible results. I was very sceptical about the new VR technology, but the results I have gotten convinced me. This lens is really worth the money.

The 80-200 f2.8 ED AF lens is a great lens. One of the advantages compared to the 85 mm lens is its ED glass. If you have money to spend, I can advise to buy the 105 mm or the 135 mm f2.0 DC AF lens. I consider them as perfect portrait lenses. To my mind, there is no reason to buy the 85 mm, f1.8 lens.

I have bought the lens second-hand a couple of weeks ago. It is in fact a push-and-pull zoom what is quite uncomfortabel if you are used to the other type of zoom lense. Compared to Nikon lenses with ED glass, the lens is a bit disappointing. Most disturbing is the flare. But anyway: the new AFS lens is too expensive and you probably will not use a zoom with the range from 35 to 70 mm too often. So, all in all, if you want an acceptable and affordable lens, go for it, but maybe second-hand. It is a good compromise.

I haved used the 18-35 mm lens for one year now (I cannot compare with the 17-35 mm AFS lens). I am highly satisfied with the results. The built quality is acceptable, even Nikon can make more solid ones. (On the other hand many people, including the shop-keeper of my prefered camera shop told me, that AFS-lenses are not only heavy but also easy to damage).

All in all I can highly recommend the AF 18-35 mm lens because what you get for (little) money is outstanding.

As I like to take pictures especially in churches for which a lens with f2.8 is really a help, I have bought an additional AF 20mm. Both lenses are still cheaper (and much lighter) than the AFS.

Concerning the remarks about architecture photography, I think a middle-size camera would in any case do better than a 35mm camera. So if you are seriously interested in this kind of photography, you should better go for a middle-size system.

Human beings have got eyes (and later cameras), so they look at things. And sometimes they even feel pleasure doing this - openly or secretly doesn't matter.

I think that psychological explanations are a typical phaenomenon of the 20th century and in a lot of cases not very useful. Basically they say more about the psychologist/theorist than the human behaviour they try to understand.

That's all.

Thanks a lot all you for your very helpful replies! I have just bought the 80-400 mm VR lens.

Martin

I am thinking of buying the nikon 80-400 mm af vr lens, but I am not

completely convinced yet that it will be a good investment. I read the

earlier discussions about this lens and would like to know how the

80-200, f2,8 af lens (that I already owe) performs with a

teleconverter in comparisons with the 80-400 mm lens.

Thanks a lot for your help!

Martin