paul_sauer

I smell a rebate or price reduction before the end of the year. The Canon 5D has a $600

rebate and the D80 is under $1K. I think the D200 needs to come down $200 before the

year is up.

The D200 is about as perfect a DSLR body ever made -- the only gripe appears to be with

the sensor noise at high ISOs.

The only upgrade coming will probably be a D200s, and your D200 would get most of

those features from a firmware upgrade.

I just bought a Fuji GW690II to replace a GW690III I sold six months ago (I missed the

Texas Leica).

They are basically the same camera but with a few differences:

GW690III is more of a grayish plastic as opposed to the full on black of the GW690II, and

the newer model has the bubble level built in.

I prefer the bigger grip on the GW690II and I think the older model's rangefinder is easier

to see.

I feel lucky to have found another big Fuji! If you're going to shoot film, shoot big. And

the size makes it a joy to use.

Before you buy anywhere online, check what others have to say. Go to:

www.resellerratings.com

Chances are the people who are enticing you with the low price are scam artists. Read the

reports and you will find out that you'll never get the camera for that price.

I would be extremely suspicious of anyone selling the D200 for more than 10% off the

going rate of $1699 (or standard B&H pricing).

I prefer shooting SLR-style with 35mm, but when it comes to medium format I find most

SLR's too heavy for the usual street shooting I like to do.

That's why I went with a Fuji GW 690. I considered the Hassy, had a Pentax 645 (a great

system), but at the end of the day I didn't want to carry a medium format camera around

unless it was a rangefinder.

I agree that for the 17-55 or 17-35 and the 80-200ish range the Nikons are your best

bet.

I have the Sigma 10-20mm and the Sigma 30mm 1.4 because Nikon offers nothing as

wide as the 10-20, or as fast at the 30mm 1.4 (the Nikon 28mm 1.4 is discontinued and

hideously expensive anyway). Both of these Sigma lenses are gems in my opinion. The

build is great and the HSM focus is fast. The optical performance is on par with my higher

end Nikon lenses.

I had a 28mm 2.8 AIS modified by Roland. The work was inelegant to say the least, and

created a "bump" in focusing up close. But the chip allowed me to meter on my D100. I

won't go in to the four month wait and Mr. Elliot's poor communication skills here.

There's a reason why this service isn't widely available -- it's just too risky and there are

better cheaper alternatives.

I recently purchased a Sigma 30mm 1.4 and strongly recommend that route -- it

autofocuses, it's fast and very sharp.

Good luck in whatever you do.

I agree with the others -- absolutely do not buy either the Seagull or the Lubitel. There

are incredible bargains to be had an much better used cameras. If you buy the Seagull or

Lubitel, you will just end up with one of these anyway, or you will get turned off from what

actually is a very exciting type of photography.

I have a Minolta Autocord, which is the Japanese version of the Rolleiflex. It's great. It

cost me $140 on Ebay in great shape with a case, the box, and instruction manual.

Other great contenders include the Yashicamat 124.

It frustrates me to no end that I can't get that 35mm f2 feeling I get on my Nikon FM body

with my D100.

So I bought a Sigma 30mm 1.4 lens (got it for $300 used as new) and so far I like it. I

have more testing to do, but I've been able to get that shallow DOF look and the speed has

allowed me to shoot in fun places like a subway station without worrying about flash.

Build quality is really very good, similar to the 10-20mm wide angle zoom.

The ultimate machine in my opinion would be the low light capabilities of a Canon 5D with

a 35mm 1.4 L lens. But this combo is more than $4K, too rich for my blood.

I wonder why Nikon discontinued the 28mm 1.4 unless they are coming out with a DX

version of the lens for significantly less.

I also wonder why Nikon has made no DX primes like Pentax's cool autofocusing DX

lenses, which actually make good on the promise of DX's smaller, lighter mantra.

The only answer I can come up with is that Nikon intends to go full frame in the next year

or two... just when I'm getting used to DX and have a couple $K invested in the lenses.

I never thought the 70-210 was very sharp. The 24-85 I still have and think it's good at

its long end, plus it's a bit faster so you can blur out the background.

The 24-85 also has better colors and contrast IMHO.

I sold the 70-210 and got an old 80-200 push/pull instead and it's worlds sharper.

I agree with the previous poster who recommended a $100 50mm 1.8 for your situation.

You will probably be better off with that lens. Sharper, faster, and able to do more in the

way of shallow depth of field stuff.

The Calumet chain store is the only decent shop in San Francisco proper shop. Adolph

Gasser's is a relic with too high prices. Forget any of the shops downtown. Discount

Camera on Kearney just north of Market has a nice window display of old cameras at

ridiculous prices. As the other poster said, forget anyone on Market St or in Chinatown --

they are all tourist shops.

You're also paying over 8% sales tax in California.

Today, you really can't beat B&H and Adorama or any of the other major internet retailers.

If you go to Los Angeles, Samy's Camera is still a really good store that compares to B&H,

but still charges over 8% sales tax.

So sorry, no world class photo store in SF.

In my opinion, the FM2 and FE2 are the finest 35mm bodies ever produced -- small,

precise, no clutter. The only thing I'd add is a spot meter.

There's a reason why Rolland is the only guy doing this -- because it's a jerryrigged

solution at best. My chip is epoxied * EPOXIED * on the body. When I focus my lens, I can

feel the metal hump the barrell has to overcome because of Rolland's modification.

Dave, please don't dismiss my criticism of Rolland by saying "we only complain about the

negative..."

It was really abysmal service and customer relations. I'm happy you had a better

experience. I for one wouldn't do it again.

I also see no need to do it with the D200 because you can get matrix metering with AI

lenses easily enough.

Hey, if anyone wants to buy the 28mm AIS 2.8 Rolland modified for me, I'm willing to sell

it. I got a minty nonchipped one that I will put on my D200 when I get it.

That's different from my experience -- it took over three MONTHS to get my 28mm 2.8

AIS back and there was only very rare repsonses to my inquiries about status of my lens.

At one poing, I had given up on ever getting it back.

Now that it's back, the lens meters well and functions fine, but there is a bit of resistance

at the close focus range as the internal tube has to clear some piece Mr. Elliott installed.

In the future, I plan to buy a D200 body which should eliminate the need for any further

chipping projects.

18-70 kit lens for general use.

35mm f2 for lower light.

the 50mm 1.8 is good for portraits and only costs $100. But it's really a bit telephoto for

general use.

Hi,

Just curious if you got the optibrite or regular treatment on the screen. I'm counting on

this screen to make use of the great old AIS lenses.

The opportunities seem to get better and better as time passes. I just bought a 28mm 2.8

AIS for $50 and a 135mm 2.8 AIS for $90. This is professional quality glass except for the

fact it doesn't autofocus or meter on a few of the less expensive bodies.

It seems that all but the most exotic manual focus lenses now cost a pittance. Nothing

else is built like these lenses today and nothing will be built at this mechanical and

handling quality in the future.

I have a couple of Nikon FM bodies and keeping my eye out for a couple minty FM2s.

This, along with a 45mm 2.8 pancake or AIS prime is the ultimate camera as far as i'm

concerned. Small, precise, durable, not dependant on electronics. This is a working man's

Leica, and an SLR to boot. I also have a Minolta Autocord that is a lot of fun.

That said, I take one or two rolls a month with my FMs and hundreds of photos with my

aging D100. I hate the D100's tunnel viewfinder, and the fact I've been forced to buy a

Sigma DX 10-20 lens to get ultra wide angle back again. I hate that my 28mm 2.8 AIS is

not 28mm anymore.

I love the control of digital, but I love handling actual film gear more. In the end, sad to

say, digital wins out for me just for convenience and control.

I will be buying a D200 and a 17-55 DX in the next couple of months. I had a lot of

anxiety about spending so much money on a DX lens when no doubt Nikon will be making

FF digital bodies in five years time. But I shoot in this range most often and it's worth it.

I'd say this -- resisting digital is futile. But the old way has a charm that has not yet been

replicated. Nothing I do looks better than an optically printed b&w neg done in my own

darkroom. Nothing.

Your 28-200 is a coke bottle compared to the 17-55. It's a coke bottle compared to just

about any other lens in the Nikon lineup.

While you're saving for the 17-55, buy yourself a 50mm 1.8 for about $100 and see what

your camera is really capable of compared to the 28-200.

I craved a FF Nikon digital body for years. But once you restore actual wide angle (I got

the Sigma 10-20mm, which I like just fine), you start to accept DX and appreciate the fact

that your array of lenses could be smaller and lighter than with film.

I think if Nikon can make a low noise, high resolution DX sensor (same noise as Canon

5d), it may be a permanent format for them.

Remember, 35mm format was invented by mistake -- someone trying to make use of

unused motion picture film with sprocket holes.

And DX could be established by a similar circumstance -- they couldn't make a FF sensor

at first, so all the technology gained critical mass around a DX sized sensor.

Happy shooting.

And you are going to have to become proficient in Photoshop. There's no way around this

in DSLR ownership.

Get yourself some good books on Photoshop. Expect to have to learn a whole new world

of post processing, and if you're not incredibly computer savvy, expect a challenging

learning curve.

I think the Pentax 645n (the one with the dials, not the buttons) is probably the best

handling MF SLR. While the camera is autofocus, you can buy manual focus lenses used

for next to nothing. It's the cheapest way to get an extensive medium format system.

This guy has done all kinds of tests mounting several brands of lenses on FF Canon

bodies.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

I'm in the same boat as you are. I want to buy a 5d body, put in a split prism focusing

screen, and use a lot of my AI Nikkors on it.

DX has always felt like a compromise. I hate the tiny viewfinders and that my stubby little

cheap 24mm 2.8 lens is not really wide angle.

Nikon will make FF as soon as I give in to my temptation to switch to the Canon 5d for its

low noise properties, big viewfinder, and the ability to have fast prime wide angle lenses

again and a fast zoom if I so chose.

So I'll let you all know when I buy the 5d, then you can get your preorders in because

Nikon will anounce the next day.

I will kick myself because I love my AI primes on my FM bodies.

I have the lens in question and yes, it's very sharp and excellent. I find on a D100 the

focus is fine if you can set the focus limiter switch on the lens to something other than the

full focus range. So if you know you're going to be shooting something way off in the

distance, just set the lens accordingly and the AF speeds up dramatically.

The one-touch design of this lens makes it easy to manually focus and zoom at the same

time as well. The only wink link there is my D100's dim and small viewfinder.