Philip Freedman

I have a D70 with the packaged 18-70 zoom lens. I also have a couple

of prime lenses which I sometimes use since the 18-70, although

convenient, has a lot of distortion. I am thinking about getting a

not-too-long tele zoom to to use when the prime lenses are too short.

Is it worthwhile going for one of Nikon's more expensive zoom lenses

or would they be wasted on the 6mp resolution of the D70? For film,

people often advise you to go for the best lens and save money on the

camera (if your budget has limits) but I am not sure if that goes for

digital too. Any specific recommendations welcome. Philip.

Can anyone say whether a photograph taken on a D2X and printed to a

high quality A3+ enlargement or larger - after being cropped where

necessary - is likely to compare well with a similar print similarly

cropped from a slide taken on an equivalent 35mm film camera with

equivalent lens onto Provia 100F and decently scanned at 5400 ppi?

 

Whilst I am happy with my 6.1m Epson RD-1 and 35mm Summicron ASPH

lens for street photography, mainly converting the results to B&W for

printing on A4 paper, I am keen on making high resolution large

colour prints for landscapes etc which I can get (with care) using

Leica M6, Provia 100F, Minolta Dimage 5400 and Epson 2100. I am

tending to prefer digital capture to avoid carrying film, X-Ray

issues, third party processing,etc and with the ability to switch ISO

speeds at whim. I prefer Nikon handling to Canon, do not want to

switch to medium format, and do not want to spend even more, so

please don't suggest a full frame Canon DSLR or a rollfilm

camera. Thanks to those who reply, Philip.

Another vote for the plug-in "Convert to B+W" which gives you, with previews, a preset series of conversions mimicking TriX, FP3, Delta etc.

I bought the Canon 28-135 IS lens a few years ago. I was impressed by the sharpness and the anti-shake mechanism but could not live with the distortion either for shots of buildings or for seaside photos where the curved horizons were very noticeable.

Can someone please tell me what pixel or megabite setting to use

when converting from RAW to JPEG for the purpose of getting 6x4

snapshots printed at my local store. I want to take everything in

RAW and keep them for home enlarging individually using Photoshop,

but I also need to do a batch conversion to put onto a separate CD

for snapshot printing. Do the Kodak and similar retailers' machines

print best from 300 ppi or some lesser resolution? (Or have I asked

the wrong question?)

Thanks

Philip

If you had an RD-1 you could have just changed the "ISO" setting. Digital has (at least) one advantage over film.

Thanks. That brings back memories. They were sold by Boots in England. I had one as a teenager around 1960. I am embarrassed to say that it was followed by (over a number of years, of course, and maybe not in this sequence - this is from memory) a Kodak Brownie 44a, Zeiss Ikonta, Halina 35x, Baby Rollei 44, Praktica Vb, Pentax ME Super, Pentax MX, Minolta 9000, Canon Eos 650, Canon Eos 3, Nikon F3, Nikon F90, Leica R6, Nikon F80, Leica R6.2 and Leica M6, and I now have a D70 and an RD-1. An equipment freak - moi? Oh no. I am sure there must be many photonet readers out there who can easily beat that list - at least, I hope so.

Hope you have tried rangefinders. Some people who are used to SLRs cannot get used to RFs. With an SLR the viewfinder is near enough WYSIWYG but that is by no means true of a RF. On the other hand the Leica is small and sturdy - may not be really sturdier than an FM3 but definitely tougher (so it feels) than a D70. Try to borrow a RF camera before spending all that money on the Leica and see if you like it. I have a Leica M6 and a Nikon D70 and now have the Epson RD-1 which is a digital RF which takes Leica M lenses. Currently I enjoy using the RD1 most (with the Leica 35mm f/2 asph. as a standard lens) but for occasional tele shots and flash (horror - only when unavoidable) I prefer the D70.

I have an Epson RD-1 on which I can take either RAW or JPEGs but not

both. To save carrying two cameras I want to use the camera for a

mixture of serious shots interspersed with family photos. The

family snaps need to be printed commercially and inexpensively as

6x4s but I want to be able to enhance the serious shots myself using

Photoshop 7 including cropping, levels, curves, colour balance,

conversion to monochrome etc. I have no experience of converting RAW

to JPEG on my PC. Any pointers woud be appreciated.

Is there a good quality medium-wide to medium-long zoom (equivalent

to say 28 to 90 mm in 24x36 format) suitable for my D70 and having

virtually noticeable distortion? I do a mixture of street and

architectural photography and hate carrying anything more than one

camera and one lens. I sometimes use a fixed 35mm f2 Nikkor to give

the equivalent of around 50mm standard lens (which is quite a good

compromise between w/a and tele !) but it does not give much

flexibility.

Since a lens of 35mm focal length used on a DSLR is roughly

equivalent to a 50mm standard lens on 24x36 format, can I safely use

a standard 50mm lens hood in that situation rather than the 35mm

lens's own wide-angle hood? Seems obvious that the answer is yes

but I have learnt not to take anything for granted.

I recently bought an RD-1 and used it on a short trip to Paris with just my existing Leica 35mm f/2 asph lens (equivalent to a "standard"ish 52mm on 24x36mm format). I used it like my M6 and only reviewed the results on-screen occasionally. I was really pleased with the solidity, handling and results. In order to provide snapshots for the family I took JPEGS at the high setting and had 6x4s printed out at our local fuji film shop and later made some A4 prints myself on my Epson 2100 using Photoshop 7 with some minimal adjustments. I took shots at every ISO setting from 200 to 1600, in sun, dismal cloud and at night. I am particularly pleased with the handheld night shots at ISO 1600 of the Champs Elysees with its Christmas decorations. The low light results do indicate that the sensor is similar to the Nikon D70 but the rangefinder seems easier to handhold at slower shutter speeds than the DSLR. It is great not to have to change films or carry two bodies in order to cater for different light levels. The daylight photos do not show any of the extreme vignetting that the AP review mentioned so perhaps it does depend on the lens. The metering is fine if you are used to manual metering or AE-hold, but is too easily fooled by bright skies for use by unthinking point-and-shoot users. As a dedicated manual enthusiast I am very pleased with it. You can set the power-save to a long delay if you find it troublesome.

I have just bought one and used it on a short trip to Paris with just my existing Leica 35mm f/2 apo lens (equivalent to a "standard"ish 52mm on 24x36mm format). I used it like my M6, only reviewing the results on-screen occasionally, and was really pleased with the solidity, handling and results. In order to provide snapshots for the family I took JPEGS at the high setting and had 6x4s printed out at our local fuji film shop and later made some larger prints myself on my Epson 2100 using Photoshop 7 with some minimal adjustments. I took shots at every ISO setting from 200 to 1600, in sun, dismal cloud and at night. I am particularly pleased with the handheld night shots at ISO 1600 of the Champs Elysees with its Christmas decorations. The low light results do indicate that the sensor is similar to the Nikon D70 but the rangefinder seems easier to handhold at slower shutter speeds than the DSLR. It is great not to have to change films or carry two bodies in order to cater for different light levels. The daylight photos do not show any of the extreme vignetting that I have read about in some reviews - perhaps it depends on the lens. The metering is fine if you are used to manual metering or AE-hold, but is too easily fooled by bright skies for use by unthinking point-and-shoot users. As a dedicated manual enthusiast I am very pleased with it.

Having for some years scanned slides into TIFF format using VueScan and a Minolta slide scanner, and printing out via Photoshop, I am now using digital cameras of 5 to 6 meg and I started taking JPEGs which are fine for retouching in Photoshop and printing up to at least 8x10 or more. My problem is that I would like to use a higher quality but the family like me to hand out 6x4 snapshots as quickly as possible so I need to be able to have a shop download JPEGs from the SD card. If I take photographs in a mode that simultaneously saves in both RAW (NEF in Nikon) and JPEG, will that allow both the over-the-counter printing of 6x4s and also my working a quality basis on selected shots in Photoshop? Or does it have deficiencies?

I am seriously considering buying a D20 and would like some advice

as to choice of lenses. I mainly do a mixture of people and

architectural/travel photography and rarely go outside 28mm to 90mm

(on traditional 24x35 format); I often just use a 50mm lens. I want

high resolution, little distortion, decent build, a bright

viewfinder image, and fast focusing. I was going to add "and not

too large or heavy" but I expect that is not compatable with the

other requirements. Any ideas?

I usually use Provia 100 slide film which I scan using a Minolta

5400 and Vuescan, enlarge using Photoshop and colour print on my

Epson 2100 (or print in B&W on my 1290 with Permajet B&W ink) - I am

keen on quality. However, my family complain that this does not

give them the immediate 6x4 prints obtainable using colour negative

film. I dont want to carry a second camera for the family snaps and

so I am looking for a good colour neg film that can be minilab

processed for 6x4 prints and then scanned for the "serious" shots

that I want to enlarge on my home PC. So far my experience of

scanning neg film has been disappointing. Any help, please?

I have had one for three months and have scanned slides, colour negatives, B&W negs and even an old Kodachrome. Both with its own software and Vuescan, I have generally been very pleased and no real problems to report. However, if you get one do ensure that you set the preferences to autofocus always when scanning otherwise you will get blurred scans (for some reason it comes out of the box with that option unchecked).

The suggestion about not using a strap at all may be misguided. The benefit of a NON-stretch strap is that if you keep it short (so the camera will only just go under your elbow if you hold the strap up)you can have the strap over one shoulder, take the camera up to your eye, and pull on the strap to steady the camera for slow shutter speeds (an old Leica trick that is not often repeated). A short strap is also safer if it falls off your shoulder but you catch it with your forearm.

I usually use Fuji Provia 100, scan the slides on a Canon film

scanner and then use Photoshop, choosing between keeping in colour or

converting to black and white, depending on the subject. If I want

to use an ISO 400 film for low light conditions and scan the results,

should I use Provia 400 or a colour negative film?

I have had a R6 for several years. It went wrong once - the shutter button stopped operating - but it was fixed quite cheaply. Since I like manual exposure control and manual focussing, I can see with spectacles the entire viewfinder, the lenses are sharp, and it is small but sturdy, I think it is the ideal camera for someone who doesnt like automation. Last year I bought a demo R6.2 as well. I mainly use the 28mm 2.8, 50mm 2 and 100 Apo Macro - all bought slightly used - and they are all great.

 

Philip Freedman