charles_miller

To JS BC

 

I love the 45 p because the contrast is natural, there is very little light scattering, it produces subtle color renditions, the sharpness is high, when stopped down a little the bokeh is smooth and natural, and there is virtually no geometric distortion.

 

Would you share with us your short list of Nikon lenses that have similar qualities?

For my interests, Zeiss is a bit late with some of their ZF offerings.

 

I have already scratched an itch by getting a Nikkor 45mm AIP lens, a Tamron 90mm macro lens, and a V/C 90mm close-focusing lens.

 

But I could potentially be interested in the wide-angle ZF lenses, since my Nikkor 35mm PC lenses are somewhat inconvenient to use. But, I must be convinced that a ZF lens is superior in some way to similarly priced AIS Nikkors before I would consider it seriously.

 

Charlie

Rizwan,

 

If you have an add-on flash unit for your F70/N70, say something like an SB-26, then I would recommend the 28-105 over the 28-80. This is because the 28-105 lens has better image quality and offers a more flexible range.

 

But, if you will only be using the built-in pop-up flash on your F70/N70, then I would instead recommend that you choose the 28-80. This is because if you put a 28-105mm lens on your F70/N70, the actual lens barrel can block some of the light from the built-in flash. In other words, the barrel of the 28-105 lens will produce ugly shadows when you use wide-angle settings and the built-in flash.

 

Cheers,

Shun,

 

While I generally admire Nikon products, their older-style polarizers are a definite exception.

 

The work-around I use is a 52/62mm filter adapter and a 62mm circular polarizer from Hoya. The 62mm polarizer works fine by itself on an 85mm f1.8 AFD lens, and it becomes a wide angle polarizer on my 35mm f2.8 PC lens via the filter adapter. So one 62mm polarizer, one 52/62mm adapter, and one 62mm lens cap became an economical, compact, and convenient "two-fer-one" item.

 

While this work-around may not work in all cases where a wide angle polarizer is needed, it has worked perfectly for me. So it may be worthwhile for others to consider it.

 

Cheers,

Sergei,

 

My SB-28 does the same thing on my N90s if it is not REALLY tightened down. But it has always had that problem since it was new.

 

A lot of SB-28s had the problem. For a while, Nikon offered a replacement foot for SB-28s that fixed it, but I would be surprised if that item is still available. Maybe you could inquire, though.

 

Cheers,

"Make sure you get a good return guarantee in case there are serious problems. If left uncovered, you get dust on the elements which reduces contrast and can leave diffuse streaks. It is a factory job to clean it. "

 

Simon, read the above twice! They ALL get some dust on their elements. Whether they require professional service or not is really a matter of the degree of image degradation that you will tolerate.

Jan,

 

May I correctly assume that you are not a Spanish national? Perhaps you were visiting Spain on business or on holiday, when you decided to pick up another flash. If that was the situation, then the salesperson was REALLY COMPETENT! That is to say that he spotted a tourist who doesn't know the local channels for lodging complaints, and who will soon be out of the country anyway. That situation also happens in the USA and other countries.

 

Jan, suffice it to say, many and perhaps most camera stores are built on unholy ground. Now you know.

JD,

 

Who are "they"?

 

"They" used to complain about the build quality of the 50mm f1.8 AF models, and praise the f1.4 AF models. It is possible that lenses made anywhere could have quality control problems. But it is hard to believe that a people who build "Think Pads" couldn't assemble a camera lens properly.

 

You probably should look at Bjorn Rorslett's web page and peruse his lens ratings before you decide.

Mendel,

 

I downloaded the manual, and the answer, or at least a strong hint, is on page 55.

 

Thanks again.

 

Charlie

Thank you Mendel for those very useful links and your for recommendations.

 

My friend bought the scanner NEW over a year ago, but he is just now starting to use it. So he has all the original stuff that came with it, including the Dual IV software. He is now using the normal application, not the Easy version. BUT, the EASY version made image files that show up full screen with the Windows Slide Show function. However, the normal application makes images that show up with a large border, and THE BORDER IS NOT THE SLIDE MOUNT.

 

There is no money to buy anything else, and he just want's to do this one job for a thousand sldes. He's dogged his way far enough through the learning process to be able to batch scan four slides at a time as long as the computer stays on. He just needs one or two specific hints about getting the image to display FULL SCREEN.

 

ANYBODY?

I am trying to help a friend use his DiMAGE Dual IV to scan his large

collection of slides. His goal is to show images FULL SCREEN with the Windows

Slide Show function, and 100 kb jpeg files seem about right. However, he

wouldn't object to somewhat larger files.

 

He is basically all set, and he can happily scan four slides at a time using

the slide holder with the batch scaning feature. However, the resulting images

don't fill the monitor screen when they are displayed in a Windows slide show.

He really wants them to show up as full screen images.

 

He does not, and probably never will, have software except what came with the

scanner. So this is not a PS work flow question. I just need very specific

instructions for the Minolta Dual IV software that I can relay to him by phone.

He now lives about 130 miles from here, otherwiswe I would just run next door

and take a look.

 

Thanks and cheers,

I recommend the F3 or the F3HP, except for flash.

 

But the F2 has some minor advantages over the F3. The F2 shutter speed is stepless, so the shutter speed knob can be used between the detents. F2s don't require batteries, and F2s can be maintained by independent repair shops, excepting the meter.

 

Above that, the F2 has a somewhat brighter viewfinder image because the F2 mirror doesn't pass any image luminance to a photocell at the bottom of the mirror box. As far as I know, F2s equipped with a Brite Screen give the brightest viewfinder image available in a 35mm SLR.

Things are worth what you can sell them for in a reasonable period of time. But why people buy some of the collector items that they do is beyond my comprehension. Even if someone is in the 90% tax bracket, I still wonder if investing in cameras is wise.

 

I sold an original SP and three lenses that I inherited to Tamarkin. I don't do available light photography with fast lenses. And for pure sensual delight, I personally prefer an F3 over the SP. And if I were going to shoot with a film range finder body today, it would be a Leica.

 

The historic Nikons were great for their day, and many individual bodies have an interesting history. But the new ones must appeal for some other reason, such as how many collectors have already owned them. Is that what you want?

With a D70s or any body with a small finder, you don't want a manual focus lens that is fuzzy wide open, because that fuzziness makes manual focusing even more difficult yet. And the biggest offenders for fuzziness wide open tend to be fast lenses, which are often used to shoot with a shallow DOF where precise fousing is critical. This leads to frustration.

 

So I think the safest recommendation right now is for the Nikon 50mm f1.8 AFD lens. Then trade this Nikon lens towards the delectable Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZF when you get a better DSLR. However, getting the ZF lens now is not a wrong choice if you are sure you will upgrade to a better DSLR.

Even with the great viewfinder and screen on my F3, one of my manual focus lenses is hard to focus. This is because it is not very sharp wide open, even in the center. This particular lens is old and rebuilt, so this problem may not be typical.

 

But I imagine that any lens that is soft wide open would be quite difficult to focus on some digital bodies. So I would check for this potential problem in any 50mm f1.2 lens or similar fast glass that you may consider.

From your perspective, you probably can imagine the advantages of a 135mm f2 lens fully and clearly. The advantages of medium format are just as real, but they are quite different.

 

In the 6X6 format, an aperture of f4 gives about the same DOF as an aperture of f2 in 35mm. But you get only half as much light, so you have to use film that has twice the ISO speed rating. The increase in grain size is more than offset by the increased size of the negative, so you still get sharper results. But a more important benefit of the 6X6 negative is improved tonality and clarity. Unfortunately, these qualities are better experienced than described, and part of the effect is because emulsions for MF are different than for 35mm.

 

But once you get MF gear out of a studio, you can't avoid the "klunk factor". And this "klunk" inconvenience will become increasingly irritating if the MF results don't live up to your expectations. The extra quality of MF can be wasted on candid shots because of subject movement, poor lighting, poor composition, or poor focus. But conversely, with a larger MF negative, blur from camera motion is reduced. Also, you can crop MF more agressively, and that allows extensive adjustments in compostion during printing that are usually missed in 35mm shots.

 

You didn't say whether you do studio portraits, environmental portraits, or candid photography. If you need to frame a candid subject tightly and also to isolate it with a shallow DOF, it will be very difficult to compete with the Nikon 105mm f2.0 DC or the 135mm f2.0 DC. And if you do candid photograpy, autofocus would be really handy. But by the way, why do you say that 135mm is "de facto" rather than 85mm or 105mm?

 

You can experience the 135mm focal length with an inexpensive 135mm f2.8 AI lens, and you can experience the medium format format with a fairly inexpensive 6X6 TLR. Both may be worth the time and the effort before spending the amout you mentioned. Once you experience the basic photographic effects, you will be in a better position to choose one, both, or neither.

 

Cheers and good luck,

Thanks for the link. The article is especially clear and lucid.

 

In the case of digital integrated circuits, many fabrication defects merely slow things down. But since there is usually a demand for slower speed CPUs, the yield per wafer is not so severely impacted as would otherwise be the case.

 

In the case of camera sensors, similar defects cause weak cell output. That in turn causes color abberations in the associated pixel. For pro's who make large prints, these abberations are unacceptable.

 

If the chorus of consumer bleating gets loud enough, some camera manufacturer could start shipping full frame sensors that have a few strange pixels. I suspect Canon could do this at any time, but I hope things never get down to that level

 

And by the way, to say that semiconductor manufacturers don't take extensive precautions in order to lower the defect rate is contrary to my experience. Sensors will probably get cheaper and better, but not at the "Moore's law" rate that applies to mictoprosessor chips.

 

In the meantime, appreciate the excellent image sensor choices that are available now.

If you are looking for very shallow depth of field as an artistic effect, the 50mm f1.2 is a reasonable way to go. And it most certainly seem smoother than the 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 models in many shooting situations.

 

Do beware that there is considerable barrel distortion with the f1.2, and that it is not quite as sharp beyond f5.6 as the others. Those factors combined with its weight and its cost do tend to make it something of a special purpose lens.

 

Trying to do artistic photography with either the 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 is problematic simply because they do ugly backgrounds in so many situations. I have made very nice shots with both, but once I started scanning slides and viewing them at high resolution, I was often disappointed with their *hokey bokeh*.

I used an N2000 for about a year and I currently use an FG. The two are very similar, except the N2000 has motorized film advance and it requires alkaline batteries. With either camera, it is wise to get a one-stop neutral density filter because they have a maximum shutter speed of 1/1000 sec.

 

The main thing I don't like about the N2000 is that the rewind crank above the film supply spool drags on my cheek after each shot. For a simple care free camera, I also like the lighter weight and smaller size of the FG compared to the N2000.

 

I also agree that a good cheap N8008 or N8008s can be wonderful. But absolutely avoid the N6000 and the N6006 because of their strong mirror-slap vibrations.

 

I don't know about FE-10s.

Rob,

 

I have a minty example for sale.

 

I bought it brand new at Epperson Photo in Oklahoma City, and I put a 77mm Cokin filter on it before it left the store. Later, I put a B&W filter on it. It has ALWAYS had a filter on it.

 

I have shot shot eleven 36-exposure rolls that I can remember, and I have also handled it on my N90s a little bit. So the total number of actuations is probably around twelve rolls. It is in "demo" condition at least, maybe even mint.

 

If you can't find a reasonable deal elsewhere, I am prepared to be reasonable. Check my references on photo.net. I also have other excellent references. If interested, please contact me at chasmill@mfire.com

 

Cheers,

 

Charlie

I've taken the Nikon forum off the favorites list on my browser. But, I still come to the main photo net page using Google. Fortunately the site has many attractions beyond the forums.

 

Even a brief tour through the galleries gives a good idea of where you have to be, what equipment you have to have, and what you have to do in order to make competent images. And an extended tour of the galleries is a good introduction to the exercise of artisitic imagination.

 

Now.....if I only had more artisitic imagination, I wouldn'e be hanging around the Nikon forum so much....right? AM I RIGHT?

Thanks for posting those shots.

 

I have long suspected that many AI and later lenses have an ever-so-slight amber cast. I simply assumed that normal variations in emulsions, development, scanning, and printing hid this little nit.

 

The fact that these straight-from-the-sensor images have purer color (to my eye) than many later lens models reinforces my suspicion that the later coatings help contrast, but slightly impair color purity.

Harvey,

 

For what it is worth, I would definitely consider a 1.2X body, and just for the reasons you mentioned. But as you can see, optimal designs don't please everyone.

Ninety-nine percent(99%)of "flipping" and "rotating" flash brackets have the deficiency that the flash orientation changes with regard to the camera. So if the flash pattern is rectangular to match the image frame, and the flash gets rotated 90% with respect to the frame, then there will be light fall-off. Duh...go ahead. Spend between $50 and $500 to find this out.

Most digital sensors are smaller than 35mm film, and camera shake is magnified in proportion to the imager shrink factor. A half-sized imager turns "camera shake" into twice as bad a problem. A third-sized imager makes "camera shake" three times as bad. (And so forth, and so on).

 

So what's cheaper? Going to a full frame imager? Or going to image stabilization? Right...it all depends.

 

Sony's approach to entering the DSLR market is probably well founded. That is, utilize an existing body design, subcontract a few lens designs, and then quickly break even on sales from people who own Minolta lenses. If that works, maybe Sony will introduce some incremental improvements and even some real innovations. I've always thought that in theory, a back-focusing digital imager would be the "cat's pajamas".

 

Canon's full frame imagers already have the advantage of being about one stop less sensitive to camera shake, and they have a noise level that is nearly two stops better. In addition, you can choose from several nice Canon stabilizing lenses for even better low-light and high speed performance. Say, five stops better than a Nikon D200 used with a non-stabilized lens. Sony will probably not try to beat Canon out of that market segment.