marke_gilbert

Never again from Cameta.

I bought a 135mm f2 Dc back in June, and when it arrived it was not in fact a "D" version as advertised, and much of the lettering was worn off.

I had a similar experience with another ebay demo purchase from them.

Granted Cameta instantly issued refunds, and these incidents are not their fault-- they get the demo lenses from Nikon pre boxed. Camtea staff has no actual idea what is in the box other than what Nikon tells them-- but, after two strikes, Im done.

I am not currently a Canon user, but I am considering picking up a 1Ds MkII as

prices fall in the wake of the release of the MKIII...

Any disadvantages to this?

Thanks Christiaan,

I had considered the issue of close range correction-- but if that were the case, why does the point 1/2 inch closer to the camera appear sharp without correction applied? Shouldnt the focus point still be the sharpest, but possibly not as sharp as when adjustments are made?

Just wondering if anyone else has run into this--

I finally got around to testing my 135mm F2 DC lens.

When at near close focus distance, wide open, the lens appears to be focusing

about 1/2 inch in front of the focus point. Adjusting the DC ring about 1/2 way

between "O" and "Front 2" make the pint of focus much sharper.

Sent it to Nikon-- returned as "being within specs"-- told it was my camera.

Immediately mounted the lens on a different camera, exact same result. Returned

the lens again to Nikon.

Now, after the return, they are still claiming there is nothing wrong with the

lens.

Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldnt the lens be at its sharpest at the focus

point WITHOUT having to adjust the DC ring?

Here are sample images, obviously tripod mounted, etc...<div></div>

Im going to get hammered for this, but get a 50mm f1.4 and really spend some time learning photoshop-- one of the reasons I got rid of my Noct was that I learned (after a LOT of experimentation) to be able to create a similar effect in selective post processing-- everything from reduced contrast to limited DOF. I even finally am able to come close to the coma created by the old 35mm Summilux.

The only issue you cant really duplicate is the flare control of the noct.

Granted, I was able to start out with the noct, and shoot it, so I had samples to work from, and experience with it...

Im trying to do a signature that looks as if it has been done with a fountain

pen-- anybody have a method or general set of presets for something like this?

I have been experimenting with a wacom tablet, and PS CS3, but nothing is even

close to the look of an ink signature--

Any thoughts at all would be greatly appreciated...

Emre,

<P> Your results are absolutely gorgeous compared to the mess I came up with!

I worked on this until I couldnt see straight last night-- I thought I might be getting at least semi-close, by taking a completely ham fisted, simple approach, using clone, and burn, and the healing tool-- not even using layers-- no avail..

This is a dilly of a pickle, as Ned Flanders would say.

Bill,

<P>The picture, you will note, was described as "not great"-- I shot that specifically as a gift for someone.

<P>I was however, nominated for the 2006 Michigan Governor's Awards for Arts and Culture as Artist of the Year. I have been published, but I do not consider myself accomplished-- conversely, Im still (hopefully) always learning...

<P>As for the "E", youll have to blame my parents-- (it was 1968, Im pretty certain they were high when they came up with it)...

Douglas,

Point taken-- but I will say, Ive been posting here for going on 8-9 years, and while I agree, there is not a "herd", there are certainly trends-- and I include myself as often as not.

Michael,

My response wasnt just to Erwin-- it was more generally directed at the legions who espouse the "better than thou" school of equipment-- if most spent as much time on developing style and skill as fretting about equipment (myself included), we would see a quantum leap in the quality of our work.

by the way, the above shot was metered with a hand held spot meter... no matrix necessary!

"Who is Ewrin??"

Vivek, told you it would be 1/3 rant-- typos come under the heading of speed typing, which is the audible equivalent of ranting!

or, thats my story at least...

ok, this is going to be 1/3 rant, 1/3 plea, and 1/3 primal scream therapy.

"I prefer a modestly equipped manual camera with lenses with really good

built-quality and outstanding optical design that require the photographer to

think and feel about his photography above a camera that shields the

photographer from the basics of the craft by introducing chance as the main

principle for creating good pictures. That said I have to confess that the E-3

is a very convincing tool and it is quite easy to seduce me into buying one. But

so is the new Nikon D3 and the Canon 1Ds etc. "

--Ewrin

Reading Erwin's article set off a cascade effect of irritation in my head this

morning, sorry you guys have to get the brunt of it. Erwin writes, and many

espouse the same view, that this is an either-or-proposition-- digital or film,

automation or manual purity, omniscient artist and craftsman or happy snapping

talentless neophyte.

I submit to you that this is simply not the case. Technology and features do

not render one unable to understand composition, exposure, or light. Nor does

possession of a finely crafted mechanical instrument turn one into a master of

the decisive moment, nor does the highest quality of optics make one understand

selective focus. I would posit that in going through the W/NW threads on ANY

forum, there are about the same percentage of good, average, and absolute

garbage shots. (and that might be being kind some...)

The shot below, I shot a couple weeks ago with a Nikon D2x, and a Nikon 105mm

f2.8 AF-S VR Micro lens. BUT, I shot it, on a tripod, with a release, hand

holding stacked ND and polarizing filters in front of the lens, after composing,

hand metering, and making my own mental calculations to adjust the exposure.

Several shots, I shot in bulb, and hand timed the exposure on my mechanical watch.

Granted, the shot is not great-- but to listen to many, nobody is capable of

using anything digital without relying solely on the camera's processing and

focus. Absurd.

When I read/listen to the endless carping about the advantages of this or

that, it is positively numbing-- from both sides. Some advantages, I would say

are genuine, some are spurious at best, and many are simply self-justification.

"Leicas are unobtrusive, they allow me to get shots I couldnt otherwise get"--

That may be true for you-- but isnt the process not a question of becoming

invisible, but rather becoming part of the environment? Is an M6 with a 35mm 4th

summicron less obtrusive than a Canon 1Ds Mk. III with a 500mm lens? yep. Is a

photographer who has developed some skill in becoming part of the environment

and making his subjects comfortable less obtrusive than a voyeuristic stand-

offish person with the most discrete, black taped rangefinder? yep.

There are a myriad of these examples-- how many of them are products of our

imagination, or held to give us assurance that we have simply the best, or worse

yet, by virtue of owning the best, we simply ARE the best?

I have shot some of my best stuff with an M6TTL and a Noctilux-- I have shot

some of my best work with a Hasselblad 503CW and 80mm-- I have shot some of my

best stuff with a D2x and 85mm-- I have shot far more crap with all three as

well. What is the thread here? Not the equipment.

I love Leicas, I loved MY Leicas-- but I love images more.<div></div>

"Additionally, as a long-lens user, FX is more like a disadvantage."

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about having to buy a 14mm and 16mm back again if I go to a FX sensor.

I rarely use my 180mm even on my DX sensor, but shoot more ultra wide-- Ill need to replace those if I switch at some point to the FX.