alvin_wong

<p>I've only been there once, but Photo Tech did a great job fixing my Nikon zoom lens.</p>

<p>The fogged lens element is quite obvious when you look through the lens.<br>

Contrast is somewhat reduced when you take pictures with a fogged 35-70/2.8. This only really becomes an issue if you are shooting directly into the sunlight.</p>

<p>I had a feeling that splicing was more trouble than its worth. Thanks for your response.</p>

<p>Is it worth it to splice together previously cut film to take advantage of roll film feeders, or is it more trouble than it's worth?</p>

<p>While the F100 makes "so much more sense" than a F3 on so many levels (i.e. newer equipment, autofocus, matrix metering, etc.), I find myself using the F3 much more often than the F100. It depends on what tool you want to use, and how comfortable you feel using it. If you stick to manual focus lenses, a F3 is perfect.</p>

<p>FWIW, I have two F3 bodies, one of which had malfunctioning electronics. I spent the money to repair it and I haven't regretted it since. Of course, the malfunctioning one was advertised in "used/as-is" condition, so I paid an appropriate price. Good luck getting your money back.</p>

<p>As some one who has used expired Press 800, the film should be ok, especially with a relatively recent expiration.<br>

I'm not sure how well these films push. In any case, you shouldn't expect a full one-stop increase in the real ISO, even if you push by that amount.<br>

Also be sure not to underexpose the negatives...</p>

<p>Peter, thanks for posting the sample shot of cross-processed Fuji 64T. I'm trying some out myself.</p>

<p>FWIW, Kodak's now-discontinued Ektachrome 160T (and from what I've heard, 320T) has a "daylight" look when cross-processed. It's almost as if the C-41 processing neutralizing the blue tint in the tungsten slide film.</p>

<p>I posted a message about scanning color negatives with the Minolta Scan Dual III and the Advanced Vuescan workflow a month ago. Since then, I have scanned several more rolls of film. I conclude that properly exposed negatives are very important for quality scans. Whereas with color slide film you expose for the highlights to avoid blowing them out, with color negative film you overexpose slightly to get more detail in the shadows and midtones.</p>

<p>I've concluded that the first roll I scanned was underexposed by at least one stop. (This roll was shot on a rainy, overcast day.) Although I was able to use Lightroom to get the white balance and midtones right, the resulting image had severe film grain, a symptom of underexposure. Subsequent rolls that I scanned (also shot on rainy, overcast days) had more exposure, and it was easier for me to get the white balance and midtones correct without the severe film grain penalty.</p>

<p>Secondly, I know that scans straight out of Vuescan will be flat. It takes a leap of faith to import the TIFF into Lightroom, and to adjust the black and exposure level, fill light and white balance. There's no one setting or magic formula to yield the perfect image, but if you make the adjustments in this order, you can get very good results. Images that look dark and flat in the beginning become bright and contrasty after the adjustments.</p>

<p>This took me awhile to do, but I'm glad I took the time to learn how to scan the right away. Auto-adjustment is faster, but I feel you can get more consistent results in the long run by scanning without adjustments, and then adjusting in post.</p>

<p>Thanks to all for your responses. David: I like your idea, except that it wasn't feasible for the problem pictures in question. The histogram was jammed up on the left side of the graph, thus requiring me to increase exposure. Bill: It's possible that the "clear leader" that I used to measure exposure wasn't optimal, thus leading to underexposure by the software, but I'm not ready to make that assumption yet. All of which leads to my next point...</p>

<p>The problem roll in question was shot on Fuji Press 800. I scanned the entire problem roll and found that the histograms on the first few frames (shot during a rainy, overcast day) were bunched on the left. To me, this suggested underexposure and shadow clipping. The histograms for the sunny frames on the second part of the roll were more centered and normally distributed. Although there was a bluish cast on all frames scanned with Advanced Workflow, I was able to set a proper white balance by first importing the scanned TIFF files into Lightroom, raising the exposure, and then adjusting the white balance. Reversing the exposure and white balance steps failed because there was no true "neutral point" to reference in the underexposed frames.</p>

<p>I intend to scan a few more rolls of Fuji Press 800 to see if this observation holds. I'll post sample histograms once I get through this project. Stay tuned for more posts...</p>

<p>Bill: I think you misunderstood my post. I'm NOT here to bitch about Vuescan. In the last paragraph of my post, I allude to the possibility that my technique (i.e. underexposed frames) may have been less than perfect, and that the Minolta software has been making autocorrections that mask the underexposed frames. I've done some more tinkering with my scans since the original post, and I've seen some improvement in the color balance. However, the grain is amplified, which appears to confirm my original suspicion about this roll of film (i.e. underexposed frames) Perhaps my title was a bit terse, but this is what I was referring to (i.e. an uncorrected scan can reveal a harsh truth about your technique).<br>

Dave: Are you talking about the shadow and highlight sliders on the B&W curve in Vuescan? I'm not touching those as the advance workflow instructions make no reference to that.</p>

<p>I have used Minolta's software for my Dimage Scan Dual III for over four years. I always had the autoexposure/autocorrection mode enabled. Recently, I switched to Vuescan's advanced workflow (i.e. scan blank leader, lock exposure and film based color) and I find a shocking number of frames on color negative that seem underexposed even after I make adjustments with curves and exposure settings in Lightroom.<br>

I understand that a "flat scan" offers plenty of room to make tonal/color adjustments, and that "flat scans" can be more consistently corrected because you are making adjustments from a baseline (i.e. the flat scan.)<br>

Still, I wonder if the Minolta software has been compensating for my underexposured frames for all these years (many of those frames do look grainy in retrospect...) I want to hear about other people's experiences with Vuescan advanced workflor.</p>

<p>You can trade up to something newer, or buy another used D70. I love the depreciation because I like to stay a generation or two behind the curve. I just recently got a used D200 for a third of the original list price, something I couldn't have done in 2005!</p>

<p>This seems like a very fair price, given that you get a lens with it.<br>

For what it's worth, a used D200 (a higher-end prosumer model) costs between $600 to $700, without the lens.</p>

<p>There is no simple answer for your question, as there are valid uses for both cameras. The comparison is not entirely fair either, as the two cameras are in different generations, and in different pricing tiers.<br>

There's a reason why the D200 was priced and marketed as a prosumer camera back in 2005. The D200 is (was) closer to a top-of-the-line Nikon than the equivalent mid-tier consumer model (D80) at that time. As a prosumer model, the D200 meters with manual focus lenses, includes sealed gaskets, GPS support and includes other "pro" features such as an intervalometer and full RGB histograms. I'm not familiar with the D90, but I doubt that it has all of these pro/prosumer features.<br>

Of course, the D90 is a newer camera with an imaging sensor that incorporates many technological advances made since 2005. All things being equal, the D90's image quality is likely to outperform the D200's in many situations, particularly when the D90 is used in high ISO, available light situations where flash is NOT used.<br>

These advances in imaging technology don't make the D200 worthless. As a wedding photographer, you need to learn how to integrate ambient and flash lighting techniques. Thus, the D200 is still a capable tool in the hands of a skilled operator. However, you may find the D90 to be more forgiving in available light situations.<br>

So you need to ask yourself what is more important: the specialized functions and extra durability of a pro/prosumer camera body, or a lighter-weight body with superior image processing characteristics for available light (i.e. flash-free) photography. The choice is entirely up to you.</p>

<p>I figured that soldering might improve contact between the battery and grip. However, I'm not handy with a soldering iron, so I'd rather not risk damaging my MB-21 grip and spend another $70 on a spare MB-21 grip.</p><p>Thanks for your suggestions anyway. I'll try regular AA batteries and see if that improves things any.</p>

<p>The more relevant question is if you prefer autofocus or manual focus. Besides, most lenses have more CA when shot wide open. This is not unique to Nikon.</p><p>Others can comment on the optical qualities of the two lenses.</p>

<p>Although I consider myself to be NAS-free, I did buy a really cheap F4s on Ebay several months ago.

Everything seems to function properly except for the fact that the power cuts out randomly. It appears that the

MB-21 side grip doesn't firmly couple to the camera. The culprit is a tiny piece of plastic which chipped off the

grip.</p><p>When I apply pressure to the side grip, the battery connections is secure, and both the battery check

and camera shutter functions properly. Once I take my hand off the side grip, the connection becomes less secure

and the battery cuts out again. This is very annoying because I can't seem to shoot more than four frames

consecutively without the battery "cutting out."</p><p>Before I go ahead and buy another MB-21 grip, is there

anything else I should try? I already tried cleaning the contacts on the two battery compartments with a pencil

eraser, but this has not led to any real improvement. I use NiMH rechargeable batteries which didn't exist when

the F4s was introduced, but they seem to work most of the time.</p>

<p>It's primarily about cost. Where there's a will (or a higher price), there's a way.</P><P>I find it interesting that you consider the FE viewfinder to be brighter and have a larger field of view than the F100's. I have both cameras and I think the F100 viewfinder is much brighter and larger.</P>

<p>That seems like a fair price.</P><p>But you should check KEH.com and Ebay used prices to be sure.</p>

<p>Carlos, do you want anecdotal evidence, or statistical evidence for your claim? In all honesty, only Nikon and a sampling of repair shops can give you the real answer you want; that is, the MTBF for Nikon digital SLRs.</P><P>Just remember that while all of these accounts may be interesting, they are merely anecdotal.</p>

<p>You have to ask yourself what you need this digital camera for before making your decision.</P><P>The D2H(s) and D2X(s) were designed for specific markets; the former was aimed at photojournalists circa 2003-2006, and the latter was the flagship model from 2005 to 2007. Under certain circumstances, either model might still be a good choice for you. Yes, the D90 probably has better image quality than the D2H(s), but is that your only criterion? Or do you need a heavy-duty body that can shoot at high-speed?</p><p>Having said this, the D2H(s) has largely been supplanted by digital SLRs introduced from 2004 onward in terms of speed, durability and image quality. Still, $1,200 is not a bad price for a D2H(s) in "mint" condition, but you can find used ones in slightly lesser condition for less than that. The real question here is, is the D2H(s) a match for your needs, and might you not (as the others have suggested) be better served by a newer model that is cheaper, more lightweight, and has better image quality overall? Only you can answer this question.</P>

<p>Gary raises an interesting question. What is the real value of last generation's semi-pro and pro DSLRs (i.e.

D2X, D2H, D200, etc.)? The introduction of the D3, D300 and D90 in rapid succession has clearly put a lot of

downward pressure on the value of these older models. And for that matter, the current lower end models (i.e.

D40, D60) seem overpriced relative to the bargains on these older models. Or at least that's what I think.

Personally, I never imagined that the D2H (now as low as $550 on KEH) or D200 (down to $750) would fall in price

so rapidly.</p><p>Personally, I'm waiting for the D200 to fall to an average price of $600. Of course, prices

will continue to fall; if you wait until 2013, you can probably snag a D200 for $150. The real question is, how

much do you need, and how much are you willing to spend right now.</p>

<p>As a person also considering the same upgrade, I have the same questions as well. Still, you have to ask

yourself what you are using the camera for. If high ISO performance is your thing, then maybe the D200 isn't the

greatest option today. If you aren't looking for high ISO performance, then maybe the D200 is good enough. A

weather-sealed body with solid construction and full support for manual focus lenses clearly isn't something to

sneeze at.</p><p>The D200 is the camera that I wanted to buy in 2005. For my purposes

(I don't

need the high ISO performance so much), the D200 fits the bill; it's a D2X-lite, and it's clearly head and

shoulders above Nikon's previous generation low- and mid-range DSLRs.</p>

<p>This is indeed a great time for people looking for a backup digital SLR. The relative (used) price of these three models is bound to shift again with the release of the D90. I was amazed at how quickly the price of used D200 bodies fell below $900 once the D300 came out. Is it possible that one could score a used D200 in good shape for $700 or less by the end of this year? And what happens to the D80 and all the lower-end models on the used market (i.e. D70, D100, D50, etc.) I suspect that those earlier models will eventually fall to the mid-to-low $200 range.</p>

<p>"...The film is exposed - but with only with the brightest objects visible, so the film was getting through the camera. While shooting, I was getting an occasional 'err'; message, but thought it was because I'd accidentally shifted the lens aperture ring off the locked setting necessary (i.e f22) while working very quickly."</p><p>I've never had this problem with my F100, but maybe you should have your lens checked? I've read other reports on Photo.net about lenses with loose aperture rings.</p>