davemckillop

<p>Film: Go on ebay, Anything you want, I recomend Contax but I am partial to Zeiss when it comes to glass.<br>

I sold my RTS but hung on to the Nikon F?</p>

<p>I still use my Nikon F for film shots, its a kick in the As...Its a fun thing.</p>

<p>I guess if you are sloppy with a brush, then it doesn't matter what you pay for it. You are still sloppy.</p>

<p>Hey is that a famous quote?<br>

</p>

<p>Line pairs?<br>

Lenses used to come with a spec sheet for each lens by the manufacture. This spec sheet would have a curve showing line pair results for each aperture in use at a specific wave length. Is this what you are interested in?<br>

You have to control all other conditions, at least you know what to expect from the lens you bought.<br>

You may be able to find this on line.</p>

<p>It used to be that Carl Zeiss was a non proffit company and still may be "Carl Zeiss Foundation" and not concerned about Nikon or making a buck on selling to other mfg. companies.<br>

Not sure how Sony pulled it off.<br>

It may have to be third party effort to before you see one. I did see that they have a modified Zeiss 85 1.4 with f-mount but not sure if its an AF system or not.<br>

The factory took over the Jena Opton faclity (east germany) when it was united once again and have had many changes, who knows whats next.<br>

To think I traded my Contax equipment for Nikon, well I am not disappointed.</p>

<p>VR? only when I take pictures when I am on a treadmill or an elliptical machine.<br>

My 50 1.4 is one of the sharest lenses I have and many would agree. Great lens choice for DSLR, you will use it a lot.<br>

There is not much magnification so you are not enlarging any shake. I call it air to ground speed. Thats why most telephoto's are equiped with VR. I am sure it helps.</p>

<p>Here is one for you that may answer the question.<br>

In 1937 I beleive, Zeiss came out with one of the first range finders called the Zeiss IKON. Japan copied this flawlessly and called it a Nipon Ikon " N IKON". Now in business as NIKON.<br>

So there ya go.........:)</p>

<p>Back in the 60's and 70's it was common to use wide angle lenses (24 or 35mm) good depth of field and great for quick shots. I tried using a series of lenses like most but always seem to end up with my 24mm.<br>

Can always crop if needed. Most of your street shots are point and shoot for it changes so fast. The most accomodating lens is the forgiving wide angle.<br>

The other choice to consider is a range finder.</p>

<p>Theres another dimes worth,,,,,</p>

<p>All I can say is in the scientific community they insist on CCD v's CMOS due to the signal to noise ratio, at least in a quantitative requirement. Especially in Spectroscopy. Almost all the Mfg. companies use the CCD. The real benifit of the CMOS is faster read out of the image "sports".<br>

Opinions may differ with practical useage with cameras due to the elctronics design to handle the noise.<br>

So it's a technology thing at this point and one final point, CMOS is cheaper to make. Get it?<br>

Thats my 10 cents worth.</p>

<p>Well Lex,<br>

From the above users, those primes are leading the pack.<br>

I have the the zooms and keep snapping them off for the 85 1.4 just cant beat that lens. I must have 10 choices in my bag but can't give up the choice for that 85 1.4 my zooms stay at home when I do portraits or any need for 127.5mm for the 300 chip format.<br>

I just cant agree that the zooms are equivelant or even close, I just cant, nope I cant.<br>

Zooms are in the bag.......unless I am on the street for quick shots and field size adjustments.</p>

For 300 or any:

Not sure why zooms come into the picture for best resolving power. Almost all in the optics industry will agree.

Its been known that fixed focal length lenses are best and optimized for its given mag. Zooms are compromises and granted cheaper if thats what you are lookng for.

Grim times, I personally don't believe it.......

Leitz in 1987 bought a few companies we all know.

The big merge: Leitz bought American Optical, B&L Reichart, Wild,Cambridge and a few other giants to become diverse monster. I can't imagine them falling off the planet before some others. Yes a hundred years old managed to bring them to the top of reaseach instrumentation market in the world of optics with confocal Microscopy, surgical microscopes, Loops and general microscopy as well as the medical giant in histology. The list is long with their sucsesses in the world. It's hard to believe that this huge holding company will let a small division go under.

This comany is big now under the name of Leica. One of a few companies that made their own glass.

The top of the line cameras is just the fun part of the company.

Sorry bud,

I I realized it was a permanent solution you were looking for..

Hello John,

My first digital IR shot was with my D100 and a720nm IR filter. The pix will come out red as usual but use a Nikon NX or

PS to pull the red out.

It does work. No mystry there.

I have a few in my IR folder

http://www.photo.net/photos/davemckillop

Well maybe I am behind the times but I use to use my D100 and shoot uncompressed RAW files, edit them with NX

software, check my DPI (300) for publication quality before saving as Jpeg and get prints that are s good as they get. I

now use the D300 cmos chip and shoot RAW 14 bitt compressed and edit the same way with extraorinary results.

I dont use tiffs anymore due to the file size and are read out a bit different than RAW lossless files.

I think I am doing it right,

NX shows and displays in 14 bitt I think and is the best thing since sliced bread but I do a second if needed in PS.

I don't pretend to have all the answers but if you are shooting at low mag, a denser pixel count will cover the detal focused on the chip. At high mag, there is less info falling on the chip and does not require a denser pixel count. "microscopy" it may apply here too.

With the new chips, CMOS or CCD are too good to bitch about. Not sure what you are looking for.

Some of the best photographs are not about resolution but it's purpose and composition not engineering.

Thats what I am working on.

I gave mine to my ex wife!!!

Pay back time......:)

Bought the 200 & 300 and love my old D100

Wow,

The 200 & 300 are still clean so far but I think Ill stick with fixed focal length lenses and optimize the image until I

need to use the zooms. I have had plenty of dust issues with the D100 & D70 with the 28-200 so maybe there is a

common factor here.

D100 was the first digital body I bought in 02 and is still my favorite. I now have the 200 & 300 that have additional

features we are all aware of.

I held on to the d100 and passed my D70 to my daughter-inlaw. There is a camera worth giving up. I should'd say

that I guess or she will think I have issues toward her, I don't.( it was freebie for her).

The CMOS technology (D300)was worth the investment (Cameta) deals. The fast read out of the chip has advantages

along with seems to me "better avialable light performance indoors" sure more spatial resolution and requires a

dfferent part of my brain to use it until I get used to using all thee bodies.

I am not disapointed in any of them for it's the brush I paint with and the results depand on the kind of day I am

having.

I can always grab the D100 beauty and I am on auto pilot. Its quick and easy and has the tiff option and is a work

horse. There are times I just pick it up and just play with it,I love it and part of this cult.

Do some shopping and get both, I paid 845.00 from Cameta for the 200 and now just bought the 300.

There are some good deals out there.

D300 has CMOS technology and has a fast read out due to pixel architecture (amps for each pixel v/s interline

transfer slower readout to register) for fast action much faster than CCD on the 200.

D200 has CCD technology but slower but cheaper and a great secnd body.

Resolution is not significant enough to make a headache decission for one or the other. Love both of them like a new

car. The 300 does have a larger screen and real time viewing.

By the way, I also have the 84mm lens and 10.5 that work extreamly well on both bodies. The light is a little more

homoginous? spelling on the 300 CMOS. I do not have to correct for exposures on the 300.

The 200 with the 10.5 needs a little tweaking.

I made a great choice and I am sure yo will too.

It's all there, depends on what you like to shoot.

Before becoming a Nikon user, I was a Contax user with a Zeiss 85 1.4.

I think once you use the 1.4 you become married to it. It pulls you into it's world and where to use it especially if your a portrait person or just a street guy.It seems to find it's own appication when needed.

It's weight factor was the only question before hitting the streets.

I hope to get the same thrill with the Nikon 1.4 when I deside to spring for it. I have seen the 1.8 but something tells me to wait.

How it works with DX format is what I need to know.

It's about selling features. The phone market needs something new (novelty) it wears off like anything. The chip market is the big winner.

My 14 year old has one so her and her friends can goof off and have fun. Thats it in a nut shell.