davidfink_photography

Just did a wedding myself with Vista 100. By choice.

 

It's excellent stuff, though remarkably unheralded and poorly marketed (at least in the USA). Note, however....I scan negatives and print from the scanned files. With my scanner/software, I find Vista to be much more consistent and reliable than Reala. YMMV.

Well expressed, Scott.

 

Here's a link to a bokeh discussion I initiated last year on another forum, along with illustrative examples shot with a variety of Nikon lenses.

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=6129997

 

Some of the responses in that thread are quite thoughtful and interesting, as well. Clearly the importance or non-importance of bokeh is a matter of personal preference, the subjects one tends to shoot, and one's overall artistic goals.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

"the clunky loud shutter release, the harsh film advance lever"

 

I have two FE2s and an FM3a....don't notice any differences in general "feel" among them. The FM3a's advance lever is indeed a bit stiffer at this point, but I suspect the smoother action of the FE2s' lever is a function of usage, as wear on the parts helps to groove the mechanism. Give the FM3a time to mature!

 

Best wishes,

 

David

Hi Toby,

 

Here's a link to a discussion of bokeh, with some examples. You might find it interesting:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=6129997

 

Best wishes,

 

David

Clark,

 

The 85/1.4 is one of Nikon's absolute best lenses. It is worth several times more than the n50. Hang on to this lens and use it also with any future Nikon body, film or digital, that you may acquire.

With my 1280, head-clogging is a constant and expensive frustration. I've learned to run a nozzle check before every printing run. More often than not, at least one nozzle will be clogged, requiring multiple cleaning cycles to clear.

 

The output from this printer (when operating correctly) is excellent, but the head clogging is an aggravation I would much prefer to do without.

Yes, Reala for prints.

 

But if you're going to scan negatives, then AGFA Vista 100 if the light is there, otherwise Kodak UC 400 in dimmer light.

Another vote here for Photokit Sharpener. I have NIK as well, but I find I use PKS almost exclusively now.

 

As others have said, it automates many sharpening steps that ordinarily would be done by hand.

 

It is not, however, a completely "autopilot" tool (nor do its creators claim as much). Part of its appeal is that once a sharpening routine is run, PKS leaves layers in place for fine-tuning and corrections. For example, although it does a consistently pretty good job of avoiding creating halos, I find that frequently I must add a mask to the top sharpening layer and paint away faint sharpening halo effects along dark edges against lighter backgrounds (roof tops or tree limbs against a sky, etc.). This is not unique to PKS, of course, and it seems to do better than other approaches in this regard.

 

Overall I rate PKS a major time saver over USM alone.

Hi Gary,

 

The 45-P is one of my favorite lenses. While some may complain that it's over-priced (new), I regard it as an excellent value, given its superb sharpness, beautiful bokeh, and solid construction. As you know, it is tiny, and the thin focusing and aperture rings need some getting used to.....but once you have a feel for it, I can't help but think you'll fall in love with this lens for the candids and street work you have in mind.

 

I use mine on a wide range of bodies....FM3a, FE2, F100, S2 Pro. And I use it for everything from studio portraiture to landscapes to street shooting.

 

Really, I can't speak highly enough about the 45-P. I have the silver version, which looks a little funky on black bodies, but that's the only "negative" I can think of. :-)

 

Best wishes,

 

David

Hi there Jos,

 

I'm thinking you must be seeing a "feature" of the Minolta software. I run my 5400 off an old Win98 laptop with minimal RAM, and I do not experience any pauses during scanning. BUT....I'm using Vuescan instead of the Minolta software.

 

Why don't you try Vuescan and see if that makes a difference?

 

Best wishes,

 

David

Hi Scott,

 

I have no doubt that the AI-S version is an excellent lens, and you can certainly find a good one used for less than you'd pay for the AF-D.

 

For me, however, the AF-D is the better choice. For one thing, it's actually a couple of ounces lighter than the AI-S. It balances well on the FM3a, and its MF ring is quite usable (though not as smooth as the AI-S of course).

 

Either will be a good choice and a welcome addition to your lens collection, but if you can extend your budget I really think you'll be happier in the long run with the greater versatility of the AF version, which will serve you well when you eventually take on a dSLR.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

I love my F100, ergonomically the most pleasing AF camera (film or digital) I've ever used. And yes, it can be used as a manual focus/exposure body.....the viewfinder is plenty good enough, and the electronic range finder gives confirmation of manual focus.

 

However, as a learning camera, as well as a longterm film "keeper," I'm with those who recommend the FM3a. Sure, it's not ideal for action (though capable, with practice), but for all other purposes it is the consummate tool for gaining photographic expertise. Everything about the camera reinforces the pleasure of taking pictures. The body size is compact and solid, the match needle system affords simple intuitive feedback about exposure, the shutter speed dial is properly placed for easy adjustment with the forefinger, the advance lever is smooth, the shutter sound is affirmative, etc. etc.

 

A dSLR may be in your future, but I doubt you would sell the FM3a once you had it.

Hi Scott,

 

Congratulations on the FM3a. I am certain it will give you many years of pleasure and great photographic results.

 

One area on which I differ with you a bit is the focusing screen. Personally, I very much dislike the K-type split-image screen that comes standard on the FM3a (and earlier models). I replaced it on my FM3a with an E-type (matte screen with grid), and on my FE2 with a B-type (plain matte). Just personal preference, I guess.

 

Regarding lenses, while some will tell you it's over-priced, I highly recommend you give the AI-P 45/2.8 a try. It's one of my very favorite Nikkors.....a wonderful match for the FM3a (and FE2), but also a great performer on the F100, as well as on F-mount dSLRs like the D100 and S2 Pro.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

I'll second Jeff on the "Convert to B/W Pro" plug-in. It has emulations not only of Tri-X but also Agfapan, FP4, and several others, plus color filter effects. I used to love fiddling with the PS Color Channel mixer, but now use the Convert to B/W Pro plug-in almost exclusively.

 

And Scott has a good point that you can achieve a start on "grain" by shooting digitally at ISO 1600.

I agree with several points made by previous posters, especially about the scanning suitability of UC 400 (formerly Portra 400 UC) and Superia 800. (The Superia 800 is really surprisingly good stuff.)

 

I have had much worse luck with Reala. (Minolta 5400 + Vuescan).

 

Bill, what Vuescan settings do you use for Reala??

 

For an ISO 100 film, I've found that it's hard to beat Agfa Vista, both for low cost and ease of scanning.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

I own the 105 DC, but not the 135. Like David H., I've seen the 105 consistently rated higher in reviews, although both get extremely favorable opinions.

 

The 105 DC is a fine lens, no question. (BTW, I do not consider it too long for portrait work with a dSLR....all depends on how much room you have in the studio.) However, at the 105 focal length, I prefer to work with the venerable AI-s 105/2.5. The DC's color tends to be a bit cooler, and images for my taste are a bit "clinical" compared to the AI-s. Furthermore, the AI-s is much more compact, and of course is far smoother when manually focused.

 

Not trying to talk you out of a DC lens. But one more consideration you should keep in mind.....the defocus control takes a good bit of experience to use effectively. For starters, you should NOT assume that the "true" neutral position of the defocus ring is at the marked mid-position. It's not uncommon for samples of these lenses to deviate in optimal sharpness from that mid position. With mine, for example, sharpest image rendition is achieved wide open with the defocus control at the Front 2 ("F 2") position, not the neutral position. And this varies at other apertures. So....if you buy a DC lens, you should test it at all apertures and defocus settings to determine how your sample behaves.

Hi Adrian,

 

Others have addressed the zoom vs. prime issue, and I'd certainly agree that any zoom in the range you're looking at will necessitate compromises in image quality.

 

That said, if you're committed to buying a walk-around, versatile zoom, do not overlook the Tamron 24-135 SP Macro. It's not as sharp (nor the AF as quick) as the 24-85 AF-S G, but it's at least as capable as the 28-105 or 24-120. Some would say noticeably superior.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

I'll echo the comments from Frank and Michele. My 1280 produces wonderful prints.....but the constant head clogging makes operation a frustrating experience. I've learned to run a nozzle check every time I get set for a print run, and multiple head cleaning cycles are very often required. Love-hate relationship is an apt way to describe it.

Sorry....I just saw that Brian did in fact reply to Keith Laban's thread, and that (at least as of a couple of days ago) he had nothing he could share about the nature of the problems or potential for fixing them.

 

I hope this all gets worked out in a timely manner.

Would it not be possible to have a reply from Brian to this thread, giving some kind of update on the nature of the problems, and an estimate on the timeframe for meaningful improvements?

 

Oh....and are others currently unable to access "New Answers" under the Unified Forum view?? This hasn't worked on my end for the past day.

I think Todd probably makes a good point regarding the 105/1.8......namely, that its added speed would be a significant benefit if your usual application will be for environmental portraits in existing light.

 

I love my 105/2.5 (and don't own the 1.8), but I use it most often with studio lights. For natural light, I tend to rely on the 85/1.4.

Hi Johann,

 

I agree with you in principle. In practical terms, however, I've found that the 5400 usually yields acceptable scans of well exposed negatives without incurring the heavy time penalty of excessive multisampling.

 

4x seems to me the cutoff point beyond which the small improvements from additional multisampling are not worth the increased scanning time.

 

Of course, with underexposed negatives the benefits from greater multisampling become more significant.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

Hi Bill,

 

I have the AF-D version of the 50/1.4....plasticky build, but excellent optical quality. I've used it often in manual focus on the FE2 and FM3a and it's a pleasure despite the less-than-creamy-smooth MF ring.

 

But, I'd suggest you might also want to consider the 45mm AI-P. In my book it's one of Nikon's best. Only goes to f/2.8, but the image quality is downright delicious, even shot wide open.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

Hi Simone,

 

In addition to what others have said, I would also say that it would be very rare to need to scan with 16x multisampling. As you've discovered, there is a huge speed penalty when you multisample, and in my experience the quality improvements beyond 4x are in most cases minimal. Indeed, I seldom find a need to scan at more than 2x with the 5400.....and never at 16x.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

Sorry you had such a rotten day.

 

Hope things pick up for you.

 

Best wishes,

 

David