jay_blocksom

July 22, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Shane Ladino, jul 21, 2005; 10:35 p.m.

I need to buy a zoom telephoto and I have been looking at the 70-300 D, the 70-210 f4 and the 70-210 4-5.6. I mainly shoot landscapes so speed is not an issue.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

You want a tele-zoom for *landscapes*?!? That's a rather "unusual" combination, to say the least.

I heard the 70-300 is soft on the long end. If I had the funds I would buy the 70-200 VR. There seems to be some great deals on the 70-210's on KEH.COM, but I am not familiar with either of these lenses. I am mainly concerned about sharpness. Any recomondations on which to choose and why?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Notwithstanding the "landscapes" issue, if sharpness is truly your primary concern, for a lens in approximately this focal-length range, and you don't need the ultra-fast focusing that AF-S would provide, then I would suggest the <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1940">180mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF Nikkor</A>. No, it's not a zoom. But it *is* legendarily sharp, and significantly faster than any of the zooms you're contemplating (which can often make critical-focus a lot easier to achieve). KEH currently has <A HREF="http://www.keh.com/shop/product.cfm?bid=NA&cid=06&sid=newused&crid=11569678">several of them listed</A>, at prices ranging from $415 to $569. There's even one of the <A HREF="http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=11569678&SKID=NA0699903108406&SID=newused&BID=NA&CID=06&SOID=N&curpic=0&dpsp=0">older non-"D" versions for $275</A> -- which may well be "the hot setup" for your purposes.

July 22, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Paul Loader, jul 21, 2005; 03:47 p.m.

Oh, and this pic of my daughter set as my desktop exhibits a lovely graininess and a quality that I did not detect when looking at the small pic on the pc. I am intending to frame a large print from the neg to exploit the classic look to the full. You might need to expand and see what I mean in order to see what I'm trying to say.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, that is one weird pic... The highlights are simultaneously blown out and yet never really white; *and* the shadows (eyes, upper part of ponytail, etc.) are completely blocked up. Now, this could all be OK, if the mid-tones were really "there"; but alas, what detail there is (especially in her skin and the fabric of her sweater) is just flat-out killed by the grain.

This is what you're aiming for, in terms of the finished results?!?

Perhaps something major got "lost in the translation" through the JPEG-conversion/upload process; but back when I was shooting B&W film, I would have called this "newspaper quality" -- i.e., adequate to document the event, but not something I'd put on my wall unless the moment I'd captured was *so* striking and monumentally important that it overwhelmed all other considerations -- I'm talking about images like Nick Ut's <A HREF="http://www.gallerym.com/pixs/photogs/pulitzer/pages/vietnam_napalm.htm">Napalm Girl</A> and Eddie Adams's <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/09/19/obituaries/20eddie_slide01.html">Saigon Execution</A>.

If this really is what you're aiming for, I have a hard time imagining how lens sharpness, per se, could even become an issue.

You also said you don't like shooting wide-open; yet the DOF is shallow enough that her fingernail (on the fence rail) is obviously out-of-focus, vis-a-vis her face and hair clip, just a couple of feet further back -- given that this was taken outdoors (apparently in full daylight) on ISO 400 film, you you *must* have been using a very large (if not completely wide-open) aperture, and a correspondingly astronomical shutter speed.

Given that, and assuming that this sort of thing *is* what you're aiming for, I would suggest you look at lenses like the <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1932">105mm f/2D AF DC-Nikkor</A> and/or the <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1935">135mm f/2D AF DC-Nikkor</A>. Yes, these are both AF lenses; but they have nice wide focus rings and should work fine on your MF body. More importantly, the "Defocus Control" will allow you somewhat more control over foreground/background OOF areas, so that you can stop down a bit more and keep your main subject fully in focus. However, I don't know of anything similar to these in the ~35mm focal-length range (but then, 35mm would given you a lot more DOF to work with anyway, so...).

And one final note: Please don't take anything I've said here personally. I *may* be completely missing the point of whatever it is you're trying to do. My comments above simply represent how I reacted to this particular image.

July 21, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Kevin Chen, jul 21, 2005; 02:50 p.m.

Okay, I tried some more lenses and I have to say the 50mm 1.8 is a really nice lens at a great price. Man, this decision has gotten harder for me. A few questions:

1. Is there a difference between the 5omm f/1.8D and f/1.8 and if so, should I care? </BLOCKQUOTE>

The "D" version communicates the current focus distance electronically to the body (and thereby, to the flash unit), which helps normal metering (a little) and flash metering (more than a little). Opinions differ regarding the importance of the "D" feature; but I prefer having it, as opposed to not having it -- especially in the focal lengths likely to be used with flash (i.e., it's less of an issue on long teles). But AFAIK, only the "D" version is current, so this is almost a moot point unless you're *really* scraping the bottom of the bargain barrel. (Also, some of the older non-"D" versions were somewhat less "plasticy" in terms of their mechanical construction; but this is more of a cosmetics issue than anything else.)

2. Is there a zoom lens that can give me that quality of sharpness and auto focus speed?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

No Way On This Planet, and Yes, respectively.

Taking the latter issue first...

Any of the "true" AF-S zooms (the new 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 doesn't count, and IMCO should never have gotten the "AF-S" designation -- Nikon is stupidly diluting the value of their own trademark with that crap) should be at least as good, and probably significantly better, on the focus-speed front, provided you're shooting in good light. The 50mm f/1.8D is not AF-S; but it's also definitely one of the very fastest-focusing non AF-S lenses, due to both the small size and simple construction (not as much "stuff" to move around) and the wide maximum aperture (which makes life easier on the AF sensor). However, under very marginal lighting, the AF-S won't help all that much, because the mechanics are no longer the limiting factor, the focus-sensor is.

As for sharpness... Fuggetaboudit. First, there's the whole "prime vs. zoom" thing. I won't claim that it is *impossible* to build a zoom lens as sharp as a good prime; but it is *so* much more difficult that for all practical purposes, it might as well be impossible. On top of that, and notwithstanding the bargain-basement price, you're talking about what is probably *the* sharpest prime lens Nikon currently builds, and at least one of the sharpest they've *ever* built. Any zoom that could even compete with that, let alone equal it, would have to be near-magical.

July 21, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Russ Rosener, jul 21, 2005; 11:12 a.m.

Coming from someone who has owned a D70 for over a year and had it suddenly die of "Blinking Green Light of Death" syndrome 6 weeks out of warranty, get the D100. Oh, and I also had it in the shop last winter for "back focus" issues. In the Air Force, we'd have called this camera a "Hanger Queen". Manufacturing standards at Nikon have dropped precipitously in the last few years for the mid-level cameras.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

First, my sympathies on your apparently horrid luck. But c'mon... You can't really believe that your isolated experience, or even that of the relative handful of folks who have had such problems, represents the norm. Nikon has sold an absolutely HUGE number of D70s -- perhaps as much as an order of magnitude more than all their other DSLRs combined. If even one one-thousandth of one percent of these happen to have a particular problem, that represents enough folks in total that we surely *will* hear about it, long and loud, on the 'net. That doesn't mean there is a chronic problem, or a design defect; and it's not a good reason to avoid that model.

July 21, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Douglas Green, jul 21, 2005; 02:15 a.m.

What's a D200?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

At this point, a rumor (kept perpetually alive by large quantities of wishful thinking) -- and nothing more than that, despite the fact that the rumor is eminently logical.

July 21, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Eric ~, jul 21, 2005; 02:05 a.m.

the d70 is a plastic piece of junk that you can't see through and has lame auto focus, typical of a three hundred dollar slr, but great images. the d100 is a real camera with an old sensor in it.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, puh-leeze!

Talk about ridiculously sweeping over-generalizations! That statement is about as valid as the silly "All Nikon lenses are the very embodiment of wonderfulness and all non-Nikon lenses are pure crap" mantra that sometimes gets thrown around here -- IOW, jingoistic hogwash!

Specifically:

<ul>

<LI>

...plastic piece of junk...

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, the D70's all-polycarbonate body is "cheaper" than the D100's hybrid metal/polycarbonate construction. But it is no less "well-built", given the context. It "feels" fine in use -- NOT "flimsy" at all (in contrast to, for example, the Canon EOS-300D). And note, a well-made polycarbonate body can be both lighter *and* stronger than aluminum/magnesium. Having performed no empirical testing, I won't go so far as to claim that the D70 is more "dropable" than a D100, but it sure wouldn't surprise me.

</LI>

<LI>

...that you can't see through...

</BLOCKQUOTE>

The viewfinder on the D100 is FAR closer to the D70 than to any other Nikon DSLR. To get a *really* good viewfinder you have to go to the D1/D2 series, at 2-5X the cost of *either* of these cameras. Hence, you are comparing apples to oranges. FWIW, I find the viewfinder on the D70 to be quite adequate, if not ideal -- and yes, I wear glasses.

</LI>

<LI>

...lame auto focus...

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, really? Guess what: The D70 and D100 use *identical* Multi-CAM 900 AF systems. Arguably, the D70 is *superior*, now that the v2.0 firmware update has been released. When was the last time the AF performance of the D100 was tweaked?

</LI>

</ul>

Got any more (non-)complaints about the D70 you'd like shot down?

it depends what you want to do with your files and what you expect for noise. i'd take the d70 like the rest of us or jump up to a used d2h or wait for the d200.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that's what I like in an answer -- a definite maybe (or maybe not). <~>

July 21, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Marc Lieberman, jul 21, 2005; 01:51 a.m.

I'm sure this questions is answered in the archives somewhere, but I just couldn't find it: What's the difference between the D70 and the D100?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

There are quite a few differences, actually -- most of them in favor of the D70. You can get a good overview <A HREF="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/">HERE</A>, especially on <A HREF="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page14.asp">PAGE 14</A> and <A HREF="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page20.asp">PAGE 20</A>.

Specifically, is there a difference in build quality,

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. The construction is *different* (all-polycarbonate vs. hybrid metal/polycarbonate); but you would be hard-pressed to call one "better" than the other, for any but theoretical reasons.

low light capabilities (digital noise at 1600 ISO),

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the D100 has an ISO 3200 mode, while the D70 tops out at ISO 1600; but other than that, not much. According to the <A HREF="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page14.asp">dpreview.com page</A> I cited above, the D100 measures very slightly better on their noise test; but based the 100% crops they show, the D70 *looks* better, IMCO.

dynamic range,

</BLOCKQUOTE>

The D70 is supposedly a little better here; the tests I've seen don't show it to be a huge difference.

frames-per-second, flash sync speed,

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Both much, *much*, *MUCH* better on the D70 than the D100. These features, along with the camera's general responsiveness and overall "handling speed" are one of the biggest areas of improvement with the D70 vs. the much older D100; and the difference is/was NOT subtle. In fact, the D70 is *so* good in these areas that it's really quite suitable as a "budget" (or backup) sports/PJ camera; whereas the D100 would be maddeningly lethargic in such use. Sure, a D2h is better yet -- but then, for three or more times the cost, it damn well ought to be!

auto-focus speed/accruacy,

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Ostensibly identical, since both use the same Multi-CAM 900 AF module/system. However, there are two little "asterisks" which must be mentioned here:

<ul>

<LI>

Some early samples of the D70 exhibited what subsequently became known as <A HREF="http://www.leongoodman.com/d70focus.html">The Backfocus Problem</A>. AFAIK, this only affected early-production units (made more than a year ago), and only a relatively small minority of them (but obviously, enough for a stink to be made about it).

</LI>

<LI>

Conversely, there have been several firmware updates released for the D70 since its introduction. One of the features of the latest of these (to v2.0) is improved auto-focus performance. So it is highly possible -- perhaps likely -- that the D70 is now *better* than the D100 in this area (but I still wouldn't expect the difference to be huge).

</LI>

</ul>

viewfinder,

</BLOCKQUOTE>

The D100 is a little better than the D70 here; but both are relatively poor compared to a D1x "or better" pro DSLR.

or in abilty to drive bigger zoom lenses?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Should be identical.

More generally, the cameras appear to be about the same price. Is there a reason to prefer one over the other?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots. Refer to those <dpreview.com> pages I cited earlier for the detailed run-down; but as a general statement, the D70 sports *many* improvements over the two-years-older D100, while the D100 retains very few advantages, despite it's ostensibly (slightly) "up market" position in the Nikon DSLR line-up.

Which is not to say "NO advantages"... The main advantages of the D100 over the D70 (at least to me) are the availability of an optional "portrait grip" from Nikon (there are only third party ones for the D70), the ability to use a conventional mechanical cable-release (the D70 requires the ML-L3 infrared remote; the new D70s model "sort'a" fixes this, but not completely), and a pseudo-mirror-lockup function (actually, it's a "shutter delay" function; but it serves essentially the same purpose).

Bottom Line: At this point, I would not buy a D100 unless it was very, *very*, *VERY* cheap; as in maybe half (or less) of what I could buy an equivalent-condition D70 for -- and maybe not even then. Yes, the D70 is *that* much better, at least for my purposes (which include some amount of sports/action photography, but are certainly not limited to that). If your expected usage is all (or at least mostly) slow-paced studio/portrait/landscape-type work, then a clean used D100 might make *some* sense for you, if the price was really right; but any "benefits" of it over the D70 would still be small and infrequent.

July 21, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Kevin Chen, jul 20, 2005; 08:37 p.m.

I was hoping someone can help me in this decision. I was looking for a sharper lens than my current Tamron 18-200 for my Nikon D100.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That wouldn't take much. <~>

I've been happy with the Tamron as a general travel lens but I have a baby on the way and I wanted a sharper lens to take higher quality pictures of my baby and I would like a lens with that f/2.8 for those low light situations (don't want to use flash too much for the baby). I wanted to take those close up baby feet shots and baby portrait shots. I tested out the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Di Macro Lens and I liked it. I was also thinking about the Nikon 2.8 Micro.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I have the 90mm Tamron you mention; and while I've not yet used it a whole lot, I *DO* like it for what it is. See <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CBHB">THIS THREAD</A> for more specific comments and some mediocre (due to the photographer, not the lens!) sample shots. As for why it's not (yet) gotten all that much use, I find that it's not really enough longer than the (18-70mm) D70 kit lens to bother switching to it for most routine or "casual" shooting. But when I'm specifically going after close-up shots (such as those samples in the above-cited thread), it's nearly ideal.

Now, the problem I have is that I was just fooling around and I played around with the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 Dx and I LOVED it. I know it's more than double the cost but the lens just felt like heaven to me. And it zoomed in quite close. I know it's not a macro lens but I was thinking that it might be do the job that I want it to do and much much more.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there's no question but that is a very nice lens; but more to the point, it is a very *different* lens, which would be mostly useful in different situations, than the 90mm Macro. And vice versa.

Now the question I have is that can the Nikon 17-55 do the job that I want it to do (take little close up shots of cute little baby parts and nice portrait shots when the baby gets older as well or close to the Tamron 90 or Nikon 105) or am I being blinded by the nice toy that I just played around with? For the purposes that I am describing, which lens should I getting? (assuming I'm okay with the drastic price increase of the Nikon 17-55) Can all of these lens do an equal job of it?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not consider these to be "either/or" choices; i.e., neither can really replace the other, but each could (and would) nicely complement the other -- IOW, you'd need both.

Now, if the thought of buying both the 17-55mm zoom and the 90mm Macro is too much for your budget (or your conscience), then I would strongly second "Chris M."'s suggestion to consider the 50mm f1.8D as a quite workable (at least temporarily) replacement for the 17-55mm zoom. This presumes that it would be purchased in combination with the 90mm Macro; but given the fact that it costs under US$100, that's OK. If you also want to cover the still-wider range, something like the Nikon 20mm f/2.8D or the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG (or perhaps the new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM) could be added to the mix, and the total cost for all three lenses would *still* be less than what the high-zoot zoom would sink you -- *and* (at least with teh Sigmas) you would have significantly faster-yet maximum apertures throughout the focal-length range covered by the zoom. You just have to make up your mind whether the lower cost and potentially better performance of the multiple primes is worth the "inconvenience" of having to swap lenses more often.

July 20, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Philip Freedman, jul 20, 2005; 05:38 p.m.

My neice wants me to take lots of candid shots on my D70 throughout her wedding weekend in Italy and insists that I get 6x4s printed there right away to hand out to the guests as well as being able to make larger (and better) prints when I get back home. In Venice I probably will not have access to a laptop or PC loaded with Photoshop or any RAW conversion software. So my questions are - (A) If I shoot RAW+JPEG will the JPEGs be good enough to get printed to 6x4 on an automatic shop machine?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch.

The main problem is that the JPEG part of the D70's "RAW+JPEG" is the (rather poorly chosen, IMCO) "Large Basic" type -- meaning that while the image size is still relatively huge (3008x2000), the camera's maximum JPEG compression setting will unavoidably be used, with the inevitable image-quality degradation that implies. Whether or not you (or your niece, or her guests) will consider that "good enough" for quickie 4x6 machine prints is a judgement call -- but I'm not terribly optimistic.

Are you *sure* you can't manage to have a laptop handy (even a borrowed/rented one, if necessary), loaded with Nikon Capture (which can be set up to do very acceptable "Excellent Quality" RAW-to-JPEG conversions in "Batch" mode -- i.e., essentially painlessly)? Presuming you also use at least two CF cards and a $10 PCMCIA CF-card adapter, the *net* time consumed by this process would be next-to-nil, as you could keep shooting on "Card B" while "Card A" is being downloaded/converted, and vice versa. If the laptop has a CD burner in it, you (as most recent ones do) could then batch copy the JPEGs to CD-R or CD-R/W, and then hand that disk to the shop drone.

(B) Can I just hand the shop the CF card to load into their machine even though it will have both RAW and JPEG on it? (I will back up onto a portable storage device first, of course).

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Near-certainly, yes -- but I'd still prefer to use CD-R, for obvious reasons.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

See above for how I would do it, if at all possible. But if this really turns out to be impossible, you have a decision to make: If you shoot in RAW+JPEG, the "quickie" prints will near-certainly be of noticeably (at least to you) sub-standard quality. If you shoot in straight JPEG mode, you can make excellent "quickie" prints; but you'll then be "stuck with" the JPEG files for your more serious work back home (and for archiving purposes -- which I, for one, would not want.

Bottom Line: Without *some* means of out-of-camera RAW-to-JPEG conversion, you can only optimize for *either* the quickie hand-out prints, or the post-processing/archival stage (and the more "serious" prints that would presumably be made from this); the other request will *have* to suffer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>David H. Hartman, jul 20, 2005; 06:54 p.m.

You will want to shoot NEF plus JPG Fine

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Not do-able on the D70.

July 20, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>dave smythe, jul 20, 2005; 03:57 p.m.

I meant the files(a+b) get transferred to the card but the camera doesnt recognize them.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for seeming to beat a dead horse; but this again makes it sound like you're trying to load both update files onto the CF card concurrently. That will NOT work.

I also do them seperately.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you re-format/erase the card between each "pass"?

You cant turn camera off before disconnecting hardware safely as well.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what you mean by this.

If push comes to shove, try downloading the update archive again, and re-extracting the update files to a fresh subdirectory. It is possible (if unlikely) that one or both of your .BIN files is corrupted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Ramon V (California), jul 20, 2005; 05:52 p.m.

you must download "A" in one card and "B" in a separate card.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I did mine using one card, no problem. You just need to do the "A" and "B" upgrades separately, in sequence. You *can* use the same physical card for both "passes".

July 20, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Edward Ingold, jul 20, 2005; 09:08 a.m.

Either camera is available used for about $1500.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, probably closer to $2K for a clean D1x with the buffer upgrade; but OK, let's not split hairs. But good luck even *finding* a used D2h, regardless of condition; and if you want to compare apples to apples, a new D2Hs is about half-again the cost of an S3Pro.

That's certainly a bargain.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

If, and ONLY "if", what he needs is a D2h or a D1x. The lowest price in the world on the wrong gear is NOT a bargain.

By comparison, the S3 falls flat in compatibility with flash, lenses and build-quality.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF are you talking about?!?

The only "flash compatibility" he needs to worry about is a simple (hot-shoe or PC) sync/trigger, for a studio strobe setup. And the S3 Pro will mount and use (at least virtually) all the same lenses that a D1x or D2h would.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Shun Cheung, jul 20, 2005; 09:20 a.m.

Exactly what kinds of photo subjects are we talking about here?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Per <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Crb5">one of his earlier posts</A>:

I don'tneed a camera for sports or action, it would be used mainly for portraits, studio work and that, so speed or large number of fps aren't important to me. Also, the batery life doesn't seems a big problem.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That seems to narrow down the application nicely.

The S3 has a bunch of drawbacks including slow AF, slow frame rate, N80-style viewfinder, non iTTL ....

</BLOCKQUOTE>

None of which (with the possible exception of the VF,which I think is an often overblown concern anyway) are all that significant for the sort of work Armindo says he wants to do.

Its advantage is better dynamic range. The S3 may be a good choice for a stuido camera if that is what you need.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

BINGO!

If the S3 is an option, maybe you should consider the D70 too since it is far cheaper.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

He/we discussed (and mostly dismissed) that option already.

I wouldn't be too hung up between 4 vs. 5 MP. The days people determine quality by counting pixels should be long gone.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I (and others) have been trying to get across to him for awhile now.

July 20, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Jim Mucklin, jul 19, 2005; 09:50 p.m.

I am looking to put up a web site with MS front page.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you don't. Trust me.

I shoot about 300 film images a weekend and would like to scan and post a lot of them as easy as possible, so my question is does anyone do this with front page or is there a plug in or an easy way to do it. I want to use front page to construct and host with my ISP that way I have full control.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

"Full control" is the polar opposite of what Front Page will give you.

If you want to do this *right*, learn HTML and create your site with a text editor (even Windows Notepad will do in a pinch; but something like <A HREF="http://www.ultraedit.com/index.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=10">UltraEdit</A> will offer many useful ancillary features and functions), not an all-in-one pseudo-"authoring tool", especially one as horrid as Front Page.

If you're a rank novice, and (you think) you *must* use a WYSIWYG "authoring tool", then go grab a copy of <A HREF="http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/webpub/aolpress.htm">AOL Press</A> (no, I'm not kidding!), and give it a shot. It's far from the most feature-laden tool of its type, and you *will* need to do some after-the-fact cleanup work,(due mostly to its age); but it has the rare advantage of NOT spitting out reams of horrible non-standard "spaghetti code" and JavaShit (tho' it does tend to lean on the "DIV" and "SPAN" tags too much). You can also find a passable, if very basic, introduction/tutorial <A HREF="http://www.wtvi.com/html/aolpress/default.htm">HERE</A>.

Also, regardless of how you generate your page(s), be sure to get -- and *USE* -- a decent HTML validator, such as <A HREF="http://www.htmlvalidator.com/lite/">THIS ONE</A>, and/or the <A HREF="http://validator.w3.org/">online validator</A> provided by <A HREF="http://www.w3.org/">The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)</A>.

July 20, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Paul McEvoy, jul 19, 2005; 01:35 p.m.

I just got a Canon Rebel XT. Love the camera, but I'm freaking out about how to archive data safely and efficiently. I have no idea what the normal set up hard-drive wise is. I thought in this thread people could describe their set-ups and what is working for them (and what isn').

I'll start with mine (likely the worst of the lot) *IBM T41 laptop (with 40 gig internal drive) *120 gig hard drive in external case (where I'm currently storing my archives) *another external case with removable caddies that has a 120 gig hard drive and an 80 gig hard drive.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I would not trust that setup. I have way too much experience (25+ years) with HDDs to ever ask the question "IF" it will fail -- it's only a matter of "WHEN" it will fail. My general motto is that, until the data (*any* data, not just photos, which are a relative late-comer to digital storage) is backed up onto removable media at least twice, it doesn't exist.

That's it. I'm shooting around 4-5 gigs of images a week, at least, so I'm going to have to figure out something soon. I'm not sure if I should get an external DVD burner, I've heard that DVD's are not very archival.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on the particular DVD, how it's burned, and how it's handled & stored -- and not least, just what (you think) you mean by "archival". The following references should provide some insight:

<ul>

<LI>

<A HREF="http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/gipwg/StabilityStudy.pdf">NIST Stability Study</A>

</LI>

<LI>

<A HREF="http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/CDandDVDCareandHandlingGuide.pdf">NIST CD/DVD Care & Handling Guide</A>

</LI>

<LI>

<A HREF="http://www.manifest-tech.com/media_dvd/dvd_compatibility.htm">Manifest Technology article on DVD Longevity and Reliability</A>

</LI>

</ul>

That last one will also provide links to plenty of other references.

I could burn cds with my onboard cd burner, although I think this might be laborious. I'm very curious as to how people are storing data.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I would recommend DVD, as opposed to CD, for several reasons (some of which will become obvious when you read the above-cited reports). The 4.7GB capacity of a single-sided/single-layer DVD is also quite convenient, vis-a-vis the 4GB CF cards that I suspect most of us will be routinely using in the not-too-distant future.

The main thing is, do NOT scrimp on either the hardware or the media. As shown by those same reports, different raw media *is* significantly different in terms of life-expectancy. Sure, top-quality premium "archival" DVD-R blanks might cost you perhaps $2-3 each, while blank CD-R media can be bought in bulk for less than $0.20 each -- but only you know what your images are worth to you.

July 20, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Armindo Dias, jul 20, 2005; 06:49 a.m.

So i've narrowed my choices to buy a new camera: or the D1X or the D2H.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, really? Then why <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CwDr">THIS POST</A>, made two minutes before the one I'm responding to here?

The main problem is the resolution. I know that the difference between 4 and 5 MP is minimal, but i want to do gallery quality prints of 13x19'' minimum (A3) and i suspect that the extra MP of the d1x will do better than the d2h...

</BLOCKQUOTE>

What is it going to take to get it through your head that relatively minor (as in, less than about 1.5:1 or so, at minimum) differences in pixel count are ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS in terms of ultimate image quality. "Megapixel Mania" is *purely* an invention of the various marketing departments. Stop listening to marketing B.S.!

But the d2h is very tempting: a better battery, the iTTL flash. The d1x lacks in those department. And i find the body much more appelaing than the d1x. But i don't need a sports camera, as i won't do any of that...

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why are you (apparently) considering a "Sports/PJ Special", like the D2h?

And for that matter, just how much do you expect to be using in-camera metering for the "portraits, studio work and that" you claimed earlier would be the main application of the camera?

Of course i wan a fast camera, but i don't need 8fps. And then, it has "only" 4 MP and for 13x19'' prints i think the more pixels i can have, the better, so i think about the 5MP of the d1x... What do you think?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you asked...

I think you're spending too much time fantasizing over spec sheets and catalogs, and not enough time getting out there and *shooting*.

I also think that, like you were <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Crb5">previously told repeatedly</A>, if you buy *ANY* of these cameras without first giving the Fuji S3 Pro a thorough hands-on consideration, you're doing yourself a serious disservice. Given what you *said* you wanted to use the camera for, and your apparent approximate budget, it is *the* ideal candidate.

July 20, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>dave smythe, jul 20, 2005; 12:49 a.m.

I've been unable to do the 2.0 firmware upgrade.I have firmware version 1.03.I get the files on the CF but it doesnt format.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?!?

What, exactly, do you mean by "it doesnt format"? That phrase doesn't make a lot of sense in the context you use it.

Also, I note you said "FileS" (plural). Note that you MUST do the "A" and "B" firmware upgrades *separately* (and at least preferably "A" before "B"). This means:

<ul>

<LI>

Format a CF card (any ol' card will likely do... Speed is not an issue, and the firmware-update files are very small, at least as compared to image files). Most folks will recommend that this be done in-camera; but I've never had a problem doing it on the computer via a USB CF-card reader.

</LI>

<LI>

Copy *only* the first firmware file (AD700200.BIN) to the root directory of that freshly-formatted CF card. I prefer to do this on the computer via a dedicated CF-card reader; but lashing up the camera (in "Mass Storage" mode) to the computer via USB should work OK too, provided you're running off AC power and/or *know* you have a fully charged battery.

</LI>

<LI>

Go to the SETUP menu and follow the instructions from the Nikon web site to complete the first phase of the update.

</LI>

</ul>

When the previous step completes (it will take a minute or two), turn off the camera, then go back to the top of these instructions, and repeat the process to update "Part B" of the firmware, using BD700200.BIN instead of AD700200.BIN.

Another thing is i cant SEE or highlight Update in my menu as per the following advice: '3 Press the MENU button and select Firmware Ver. in the setup menu. 4 The current firmware version will be displayed. Press the multi selector down to highlight Update, then press the multi selector to the right. '

All i can do in the menu selection is that i have version 1.03-i cant do anything further than that except exit.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

If I recall correctly, the "Update" options will only appear if the camera "sees" a valid firmware-image file (i.e., AD700200.BIN or BD700200.BIN), and *only* that, on the CF card currently installed in the camera.

Is something wrong with my D70? Thanks...

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Possible, but I highly doubt it.

July 20, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Michael Spencer, jul 19, 2005; 10:40 p.m.

Darrell Irwin posted a question about "Blank Images with D100" on jul 17, 2005; 11:26 p.m. He did not get much help in diagnosing his problem. I have a different symptom, but maybe there is some common connection. Any suggestions would be welcome.

[snip]

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I have left the EXIF data with this reduced size image so maybe this will give someone a clue as to what is happening. If you scroll down to ISO you will see that the value is set to "zero". Also, some other nearby data items seem corrupted.

There were a string of four such images, followed by a bunch that were OK, then a single ISO=0 image also dark, more good ones, another string of four dark ones, and then the camera has been operating normally since.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I read the earlier threads you refer to; but having nothing constructive to offer, didn't comment. However, I now think you might really be onto something with this "ISO 0" thing. That is NOT normal, and it definitely sounds like an intermittent bug in the camera. Further, given that it has (apparently) affected at least two different D100s, it's probably not an isolated fluke. Unfortunately, I also suspect it will take Nikon Service/Support to further diagnose and/or fix it. But before you "go there", just to make sure you've looked under every rock (and to shortcut Nikon's possible "pass the buck" answer), try using a different CF card for awhile, and see if that changes the results any. Meanwhile, save those images, and document *everything*.

Darrell... This advice applies to you, too.

July 20, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Georgina Gandy, jul 19, 2005; 09:46 p.m.

Thank you for your prompt responses. My printer is not at fault, it appears to be the iPhoto software I'm using.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

How, exactly, have you confirmed that?

I've been using the digital camera for just a few months, so I'm pretty new to it all and believe there must be something to compensate which I haven't yet comprehended. Digital photography and home printing is a far cry from my classic Voiglander Vito BL 35mm and taking film to the photo shop to be processed.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. So forgive me if I'm re-treading "insultingly" elementary stuff here, but we're at the point where we need to eliminate as many "maybes" as possible...

First, it has come to my attention that the camera you're using does NOT offer any non-lossy image-storage formats, such as TIFF or RAW. IOW, you're always stuck with JPEG; which means you're always stuck (to at least some degree) with JPEG's compression artifacts and inherent image degradations. I also noticed that you've been posting essentially this same question in other venues -- and you've been getting some truly HORRID advice (like "Turn down the image size/quality setting on the camera", in one example I saw) in the process. So it's possible that the "problem" images you're trying to print are simply not of sufficiently high quality to start with.

But even so, you *ought* to be able to produce a perfectly reasonable 4x6 (or 5x7, or maybe even 8x10 for that matter, given that it is a 4MP camera) print -- my wife's three-year-old Canon A40 is similarly crippled, and sports only 2MP; yet, we can get very nice 4x6's out of it, as long as the exposure and focus is good.

HOWEVER... Your "digital workflow" (such as it is in such a simplistic setup) has to be right at every step, including making the initial exposure, or you can screw it up royally; and you don't have the RAW image to fall back on. So...

<ul>

<LI>

Is this "wavy or serrated" effect afflicting ALL of your images, or only some of them?

</LI>

<LI>

If the latter, what are you doing differently on those shots, vis-a-vis the ones which are problem-free?

</LI>

<LI>

Are you *always* using the largest/highest-quality storage format your camera offers (which in your case appears to be 2,288 x 1712 JPEG, "SHQ" mode)?

</LI>

<LI>

If all that's a "go", how *exactly* are you transferring the images from the camera to the computer, and thence to the printer? Be specific.

</LI>

</ul>

Have you tried taking any of these "problem" image files to the local drugstore for a cheapie machine-print? How do the results compare to your at-home prints of the same images?

Are any of you familiar with Apple's iPhoto?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Not directly. But from what I understand, it is essentially a simple "photo organizer" application, with very limited editing capabilities -- which is just fine, for our current purposes, since the camera is presumably already producing ready-to-print (pre-sharpened, etc.) JPEGs.

July 19, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Shun Cheung, jul 18, 2005; 12:44 p.m.

There is one problem with using the D70/D70s as a backup for the D2X, all the viewfinder and slow AF issues aside, the D70 uses a different battery, the EN-EL3. Bringing a D70 means a different charger and additional incompatible batteries. A second D2X/D2H means a lot of extra weight. I know, you are in a no-win situations.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's look at this rationally...

The recharger(s) come with the camera(s), and will presumably be left at "base camp", where the AC power is; so it/they are a non-issue on both the cost and pack-weight/size fronts.

Two or three spare EN-EL3 batteries should be more than adequate to support a D70's role as "backup body", particularly given that we've already established that Guylain isn't going to be away from said "base camp" for more than a day or two at a time (actually, ONE spare would probably do it, given that the D70 usually gets 400+ -- sometimes *very* "+" -- images out of a battery charge). And they're also small enough that pack space, per se, should simply not be an issue.

As for weight... Per the best figures I could quickly dig up on the web, the D2H body weighs 38.4 oz., while the D70 (body only) weighs 21.0 oz (both sans battery). The EN-EL3 battery itself is ~2.8 oz.; so all told, the D70 plus *four* EN-EL3 batteries would weigh 32.2 oz -- or about 1/3 lb. *less* than the D2h alone.

And finally, the total cost for those two or three spares would be ca. US$100 (less, if you bought third-party "compatible" batteries) -- far less than the difference in cost between even a used D2h and a new D70 or D70s.

So like I said, in the context of a "backup only" body, the D70 just makes more sense overall, unless the budget is flush enough to accommodate a second D2x (as opposed to D2h).

Having some additional 5 to 10 4-G CF cards is a very achievable alternative. You don't need more than that. In case your laptop, etc. fail and you come down to saving on CF cards, you'll compress most of your RAWs and delete all the bad images on site. If you are like the rest of us, your number of "keepers" should not fill 10 4G cards.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps not, but would you (or, more pointedly, Guylain) *really* want to bog yourself down dealing with those decisions while in the field? In the sort of situation he described, I would FAR rather just keep shooting while I can, and leave the sorting/culling chores for later.

That said, I also think having a few more spare CF cards that he "thinks" he needs is also "cheap insurance"; but it's just not an effective substitute for being able to burn multiple redundant DVDs (and then hopefully sending at least one of the duplicate copies "off-site" immediately, as yet another form of "disaster-proofing").

The Sandisk Extreme III 4G CF cards are in short supply right now and are over $400 each. If you manage to get a bunch of those, it should be very easy to sell them 2, 3 months from now after your trip only with a small loss.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe... *IF* the supply situation has not resolved itself by then (which it very well might).

Slow CF cards are much cheaper to start with but I suspect that you'll have a hard time unloading them afterwards and will have a major loss.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.

July 19, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Georgina Gandy, jul 18, 2005; 09:13 p.m.

I have an iMac G4 computer which I bought last year and use iPhoto to import images from my Olympus C-450 Zoom camera. I also use an Epson Stylus CX5300 for my printing.

I am finding that in small size printing including the popular 6 X 4, that straight lines are wavy or serrated. It has been suggested to me that compression causes this, but other aspects of a print are unaffected.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

An *awful* lot depends on just what you mean by "wavy or serrated"; but my first instinct is to concur with John Meyers: It's likely a matter of the paper feed and/or carriage motion on the printer being less than ideally smooth. FWIW, the CX5300 is not exactly known for it's exemplary photo performance -- think "Jack of all trades, master of none."

Apart from buying an expensive alternative software programme which may still not guarantee a good result, how can the problem be resolved?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

If you can borrow another printer, or get a friend with a different/better printer (such as virtually any of the current models from the Epson "Stylus Photo" line) to print a few test shots for you, that would at least take a number of variables out of the equation.

Large prints are not affected, nor I believe when shots are emailed.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if John & I are right, the latter would be a non-issue. The former is a tad surprising, tho'; hence my suggestion to try printing those same images on another printer. For that matter, if this "wavy or serrated" artifact is easily noticeable on a 4"x6" print, just burn two or three sample images to CD-R, then take that disk to your local drugstore and invest half a buck or so in a couple of their generic "auto everything" prints. They may be sub-optimal in other ways; but it should at least give you a usable comparison on the geometric issues.

July 18, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Guylain Doyle, jul 18, 2005; 09:13 a.m.

Jay, if I understand well, I can burn with the Apacer without the laptop. So I would bring like 3 hard plastic cases of DVDs, burn with the laptop and have a back up in case of problems.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That is correct. As I see it, the few hundred $$$ for the stand-alone DVD burner is cheap insurance. You might even find that it is simpler/easier to use the portable burner to dump images from the CF cards to DVD, as opposed to using the laptop; Apples tend to be maddeningly presumptuous about going off and "automagically" doing all sorts of stuff you didn't actually ask it to do, in an apparent effort to make whatever it *thinks* you want to do "easier" -- which often turns out to be harder in the long run, when dealing with simple low-level stuff like file transfers.

One other caveat... I've no personal experience with that particular DVD burner. I pointed to it simply as an example of the genre which looked suitable. But beware... Many (perhaps "most") similar units support CD-R and CD-R/W, but not DVD-R, DVD+R, etc., which I consider crucial for this application).

<BLOCKQUOTE>Shun Cheung, jul 18, 2005; 09:33 a.m.

If all you have is a one-month lead time, I would get all of this stuffs and test everything as soon as possible. For example, I once bought a stack of TDK blank CDs and when I tried to burn them, about every second CD was defective. I would get a bunch of DVDs and run some spot check to make sure that they are ok.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Good advice. Sort'a the computer-ese equivalent of "Measure twice, cut once." ;-)

The problem with using an F100 as a backup is that you'll need to bring a lot of film, and you end up with the worst of both (film and digital) worlds. Normally I would say find another DSLR that also uses EN-EL4 batteries and CF cards, but that limits you to another D2X or a D2H. Given that you seem to be new to the digital process, maybe film backup makes sense in this case.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

If intended solely as a backup piece, I think a D70 would make more sense than a D2h, simply for budget reasons (plus it's lighter and smaller). There would not be a huge difference in the potential image quality, presuming that he can work in a "studied" manner (i.e., if the viewfinder and comparatively slow AF don't get in the way too much); and the different batteries should not be that big a deal -- they're quite light, and fairly cheap (certainly a lot cheaper than popping for a D2h!).

OTOH, depending on the type of work he's doing, it is quite possible that neither a D70 nor a D2h would be "good enough", even for backup duty. If he *needs* the ultimate image quality of a D2x, then he needs a D2x; nothing else will do.

If your budget allows, I would get additional 4G CF cards. I am simply unsure how all of these mechanical devices with spindles will hold up in such a trip: DVD writers, hard drives, etc. The solid state CF cards are proven to be very reliable and you can get slower-speed 4G cards around $260 each. The question is how easy it will be to sell them afterwards.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That would likely be "The Safest" approach; but probably not by all that much, as long as he's planning on leaving at least most of the more fragile gear at "base camp" (and having redundant backups for any *critical* hardware). It also just doesn't seem economically feasible to me. Given the number of images he's talking about, he'd need 35-40 of those 4GB cards to get him through the trip (assuming enough spares to provide a decent safety margin) -- you're talking roughly ten grand here! And I daresay, the "slower-speed" ones would be the *hardest* to unload for more than pennies-on-the-dollar after the trip.

July 18, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Anesh Pather, jul 17, 2005; 05:49 a.m.

Can anyone tell me approx. how many 6x4 pics will be printed by an Epson R800 or R1800 on premium glossy paper with a full set of ink. I'm trying to work out printer vs lab costs.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

It's impossible to be precise, because there are just too many variables -- not the least of which is the sort of subjects you shoot. For example, tight face shots of (Caucasian) people will kill the Light Magenta faster than any of the others, while lush green landscapes will kill the Cyan and Yellow really quickly.

Having said that, I'll note that if the R800/R1800 is anything like my R300M in this respect (yes, I know they use entirely different inks; but I'm guessing that Epson's engineers would have sized the tank capacity "about" similarly vis-a-vis consumption), and you buy that 4"x6" Premium Glossy paper in the 100-sheet "value pack", you can probably expect to need a full set of ink cartridges at "about" the same time you need a second pack of paper, give or take a bit.

As for overall costs, your local drugstore is very probably significantly cheaper, even before you factor in amortization of the printer itself, or the value of your time. But that's not really the point, is it? Doing your own prints allows you to maintain absolute creative control over the end product; if you use that control judiciously, you can turn out a better-looking product than even most pseudo-custom labs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Frank Skomial, jul 17, 2005; 10:31 p.m.

Epson's R1800 little advertising tells: "400 pages at 5% coverage", "400 pages graphic at 5% coverage", "550 pages ISO/IEC 10561 letter pattern".

The catch is that they do not tell you is the size of the page. Perhaps A4 ?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's not "the catch".

The catch is, that spec is for text, printed in text mode, and/or non-photographic "graphics" like pie charts and such, as might be contained in a business report. Hence, it has NO bearing on the ink consumption in any of the Photo modes. I strongly suspect the reason Epson is so mum on Photo mode ink consumption is that they know full well they'd scare off 90% of the buyers if they told them just how expensive it was *really* going to be to feed the beast.

July 18, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Adam Maas, jul 17, 2005; 08:32 p.m.

If you can't afford the D70 with the kit lens, look at either getting the 18-55 AF-S (Kit lens for the D50) with it, or go downspec a little with the D50 and the 18-55 (About the same cost as a D70 body).

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to take issue with this advice. While I'm not intimately familiar with the rebate offers in "jurisdictions" outside the U.S.A., my understanding is that in at least *most* places, the corresponding Nikon distributors *are* offering deals similar to what Nikon USA offers here. Given that, the D50 is a really *lousy* value right now, and will remain so until the very last of the "original" D70 kits is sold off (which, BTW, I am somewhat amazed has not already happened). For example, using either <A HREF="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=2&a=706_6215&shs=&ci=6222&ac=&Submit.x=8&Submit.y=5&Submit=Go">B&H</A> or <A HREF="http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?page=il_refine_search">Adorama</A> as pricing references, the D70 kit is only US$50 more expensive (after rebate) than the D50 kit -- and it is unquestionably a LOT more camera/lens.

You aren't likely to see a huge performance difference between the D70 and D50 unless you need the extra flash features, 0.5fps or the ability to set ISO in 1/3EV stops.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a LOT more differences than that, some of them quite significant IMCO. See <A HREF="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond50/">THIS PAGE</A> for a run-down. But note that at least most of the things Phil refers to as "improvements" in the D50 over the (original) D70 were *also* subsequently made available to all existing D70 owners via a downloadable firmware upgrade. So the net differences are pretty much all on the "negative" side for the D50.

Either lkit lens will outperform the 28-80,

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but that's not saying much; and there is little or no question that the 18-70 is a far better lens, overall, than the 18-55 is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Adam Maas, jul 17, 2005; 08:35 p.m.

Oh, and a note on the 70-210. If it's a nikkor AF, you've got an excellent lens. The only difference between the three versions of the Nikkor 70-210 AF is the first is a constant f4, making it the most desirable, and the last is an AF-D, making it the second most desirable (And best for portrait work).

</BLOCKQUOTE>

And here too, you're painting with too wide a brush. Notwithstanding Ken Rockwell's overblown generalizations, there are *significant* differences between the various versions of the 70-210 AF that Nikon produced over the years, especially with regard to autofocus performance -- which is a FAR larger failing when used on a D70 than with the D100 that Rockwell based his comments on.

But all are optically excellent and well built.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, mostly.

July 17, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>dennis lee, jul 17, 2005; 01:18 a.m.

David, Jay, thank you both very much.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

You're quite welcome, I'm sure.

Here's the bottom line. I saw two cameras come into the store and assumed they would both come back out. Well, they didn't. The S3 apparently found another destiny

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Somebody probably grabbed it *FAST*, because they recognized a rare bargain (these things don't come around on the used gear market nearly as often as Nikon DSLRs).

and the D2H came out when I asked about it. Very clean, box, and everything to go with it.

I talked to one of my old newpaper buddies back in CA and the entire staff are using the D2H with the 2.8 ED IF zooms.

We talked about the file sizes, and the output print quality. He too agreed that 11x14 is do-able. Although perhaps not optimum in all circumstances.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

None of that is at all surprising. As I noted earlier, the D2h *is* a "Photojournalist Special"; so I would very much expect your "old newspaper buddies" to use them, and love them.

The problem is that it just felt and looked like to good a camera to pass up. So, I bought it this morning. The shop also had a mint 18-70 3.5-4.5 G lens with hood (not a surprise) so I took that too as a starter lens to get the feel for AF etc., with the 1GB Lexar card I had the package out the door for $1909.

Not a fabulous deal but fair I think. I have to say it's like having a brand new rig here. Really clean.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds very nice. And I suspect you're right -- that's probably a fair deal, if the thing is as nice and complete as you say, but not really a bargain (I'm figuring $85-100 for one of the "better" Lexar CF cards, and perhaps $150 or so for a used 18-70mm D70 "kit" lens; making the D2h itself net out at around $1,600 or so, depending on the Sales Tax rate in your state). I'm sure you will be happy with it, overall; just understand that it's not as well-suited to weddings and portraits as the S3 would have been.

Anyway, I might have gone for the S3 had it been available, but it wasn't, and without having handled it I don't really know what I missed. In my favor, I shoot nothing but 400 film and push my luck way too far with it. As a full frame shooter for 25 years now, crops aren't a huge concern.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Given that, I think you're going to be very pleasantly surprised at what the lack of grain can do for your images.

Have fun!

July 17, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Doghouse Reilly, jul 17, 2005; 02:02 a.m.

I own a Nikon F75. I am planning to purchase a digital SLR. I can't afford a D70 with the kit lens.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you ABSOLUTELY certain about that? I don't know where you're posting from (based on your portfolio, I suspect Israel); but presuming you have something similar to Nikon USA's $100 rebate available to you, the effective *net* cost of the kit lens is under US$200 -- which is a HUGE bargain, all things considered.

Right now I have these Nikon lenses: 28-80G, 50/1.8D, 70-210. Will these lenses do well with the D70 body? Will it suffice for my everyday shootings indoor and landscapes? (you can see my photos here at my folder).

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G is far from my first choice in that focal-length range, for several reasons; but yeah, it will mount up, meter correctly, etc. (which is about the best thing I can say about it).

OTOH, the 50mm f/1.8D is one of my favorite lenses, *and* one of the biggest bargains Nikon ever set loose on the world. To me, it's even nicer on a DSLR than on a film body (partly because I'm not nearly as enamored of the putative "normal lens" perspective as most folks seem to be); but that's just me.

The "70-210" is essentially an unknown entity, mostly because there have been *several* very different lenses of that focal length range made over the years, some of which were/are a lot better than others -- especially on a "low-end" DSLR like the D70. But much will depend on what/how you shoot, and how important things like ultra-fast autofocusing are to *your* shooting style. (But, again based on your portfolio, I'm guessing these issues are NOT all that important to you.)

To sum up: Given this particular assortment of lenses, I think it's even more important for you to consider getting the D70 "kit", as opposed to the bare body. Due to the DSLR's "crop factor", that 28-80mm zoom will be "equivalent to" a 42-120mm zoom, when used on the D70; and that is very probably just not wide enough for many shooting situations. So sooner or later (and probably sooner), you'd need to supplement it with a significantly wider lens (such as, for example, the Nikon 20mm f/2.8D or the Sigma 20mm F1.8 EX; or perhaps even the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM, if you're OK with the fact that it would NOT be usable on your film body). While all of these are very nice lenses, they're also all in the US$400-500 range; hence, your overall cost would be significantly higher than if you'd gone with the 18-70mm kit lens to start with.

July 17, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Guylain Doyle, jul 16, 2005; 08:51 p.m.

Thanks to you all, I've read everything with great interest. I think almost everybody got a part of the answer and I had the last piece of the puzzle 2 days ago when sbdy called me to ask if I would be interested to sell my Pentax 67II... Finally, it's all about trying to make beautiful images. So I'm gonna sell this amazing camera (I did 4 rolls of films this year) and buy a powerbook G4 12" and 2 CompactDrives or 2 Flashtrax units (if the powerbook crashes I still can download files) plus 1 or 2 more EN-EL4 and bring my F100 as backup.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

So then, based on only "1 or 2 more EN-EL4", I take it you're not planning on being more than about a half-day hike away from "base camp" at any given point, right? That's fine; in fact it eases some of the other issues somewhat. But I'm pretty sure it's not the impression most of us got from your original post.

Given that, I will again repeat my strong recommendation to consider a portable DVD burner (such as that <A HREF="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productDetail&A=printerFriendly&Q=&sku=388187&is=REG">Apacer Disc Steno</A> unit I mentioned previously), to back up the (optional) DVD-RW/CD-RW drive that I presume you *will* be sure to include in the Powerbook. The portable HDD-based devices like the ImageTank/CompactDrive/Flashtrax are all well and good; but they are inherently more "risky" than burning CDs or DVDs -- if the unit fails you lose ALL the images (currently) stored on the unit. By comparison, if the DVD burner fails, you lose only the ability to archive more images to removable media; and if the DVD itself fails, you lose only that day's-worth of shots (which, presumably, is already backed up on yet another DVD).

Also, don't forget some sort of add-on/in CF-card reader (I gather the G4 does *not* have PCMCIA/CardBus slots, unfortunately), to ease getting the images out of the camera and onto the computer -- you do NOT want to have to lash the camera itself up to make those transfers, if you can avoid it.

I had a look at my slides shot in similar lighting condition and maybe I will miss film but I remembered the tons of coffee I drink during the scans... And it appears that after little tweaking in PS, my RAW files can look pretty close as a good ol' Velvia.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that once you get your hands on a D2x, you'll never want to let go. ;-)

I'm leaving in one month so I'll have very little time to test it but I'll carry some rolls of films for my first "digital adventure" as you said and I'll manage to do all my "once in a lifetime shots" at first so if I have a major crash, I'll be alright ! You see, there's no problem, only solution...!

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Given that this is (apparently) your first foray into digital, I would also strongly recommend that you get the camera ASAP, then go shoot (anything and everything) with it as soon as you get it. Then start working out your post-processing workflow. As I said in another thread, it's not that a digital workflow is difficult or onerous; but it *is* "different", so it takes some getting used to.

Good luck.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by jay_blocksom