nolan

Are you sure you're running Aperture 1.5? That release officially supports all the current

Mac hardware, including the 13" MacBook. I'm currently using that exact machine with

Aperture 1.5, with no warning messages. I wonder if you had let Software Update run and

it updated the operating system to 10.4.8 but did not yet install the Aperture 1.5 update.

Run Software Update again from the Apple menu. Also note that there is now an Aperture

1.5.1 update, so you may need to run Software Update yet again to get that.

Also, note that even with earlier versions of Aperture, you can click through the resolution

warming message on a MacBook and launch the program anyway. A tiny annoyance.

Hope that's helpful.

I have substantial experience with both bodies, and just yesterday I shot an event where I

went back and forth between the cameras (17-55 on D100, 80-200 on D200). While the

D200 is clearly a better camera in almost every area (especially buffer and CF-write

speeds), I continue to be surprised at how well the D100 measures up for almost every use

except fast sports. The D100 still feels great to use, and the viewfinder image and

autofocus speed are not that different between the two cameras, IMHO.

The D200 really is fantastic. But for $2000 I suggest that you check out a D100 (or D70)

and the 17-55/2.8, with an SB-800 flash if you can. For final image quality, that lens will

make much more of a difference than the camera body will.

Yet another vote in favor of the 17-55/2.8. The results from it are consistently beautiful:

sharp, contrasty, colorful, nice bokeh. Distortion is well-controlled for most purposes (i.e.

not architecture). For event shooting and general use I cannot think of a better lens, as

long as you don't mind the size and weight. I often shoot wide open with available light. I

have also used the 24/2.8 AF-D and 35/2 AF-D extensively, neither of which compares to

the optical quality of the 17-55, in my experience.

My 17-55 sample is nearly as sharp at 50mm as my 50/1.8 AF-D. The 50/1.8 comes out

when I need a truly small walkaround kit, or when I am doing critical linear work like

photographing artwork.

Apparently when it works it's a lovely fast lens. I purchased two of them from B&H, six

months apart, and each one back-focused so much as to be unusable. I returned them both.

No other lens has had focus problems on my (Nikon) camera bodies.

So if you get one, just make sure you can return it if necessary. Good luck.

Nolan

It's possible that the aperture blades on the Tokina are stuck open, or for some other reason

(like a bad mechanical linkage) don't stop down to your selected aperture just before the

shutter trips. Does the viewfinder darken when you push the depth of field preview button on

the D100, with a medium or small aperture selected?

Nolan

Nikon D100, AF 50/1.8 looking through a Meade ETX-105 telescope with 32mm eyepiece.

From Portland, OR, 18 July 2003.

<p>

I would love a D200 for even better noise reduction (among many other benefits). Maybe

before too long...

I also want a slightly wide low-light lens for my D100. I bought a Sigma 30/1.4 from B&H

a few months ago but returned it immediately because of severe back focus. I've read

many reports of Sigma's poor quality control, but some people also seem to have good

copies of this lens. So I took a chance and recently bought another Sigma 30/1.4 from

B&H and it backfocused almost as badly as the first one. Returned it, of course. The ten

other lenses (all Nikon) I've had on my D100 all focus precisely.

<p>

I am now permanently done with Sigma. It's too bad because the 30mm would be two full

stops faster than my 17-55/2.8. I can't afford/justify the 28/1.4 so I have to decide if the

one-stop advantage of the 35/2 would be helpful enough for event shooting.

I've gotten excellent service, fine scans made to my specs, and very reasonable prices from

<a href="http://digitalslides.net">digitalslides.net</a>. I get 4000dpi, 48-bit color scans

saved to DVD, and in volume that ends up costing less than $1 per slide.

<p>

I have no affiliation with digitalslides.net other than being a satisfied customer.

<p>

Nolan

http://www.digitalslides.net

He delivers excellent slide scans (from a Nikon 5000) for very reasonable prices. I've had

several hundred items scanned there and delivered on DVD to my specs (16-bit color,

AdobeRGB space, full resolution). Highly recommended.

You'll definitely want the flash for fill outdoors as well as for inside the dark restaurant. Do

research on flash brackets as well.

For portraits with nicely blurred backgrounds the 80-200 will be excellent *if* you can get

back far enough from the subject. The 18-70 will be a good general coverage lens, and it

can also be a workable portrait lens if you shoot wide open at the telephoto end. But a 50/

1.8 or 50/1.4 might be very useful, and would let you get more ambient background light

in the restaurant.

You should have at least one more CF card, and if you shoot RAW then get as many cards

as you can afford because they will fill up fast. Consider taking a computer or portable

hard drive on site, too, for backing up image files and allowing you to reuse CF cards if

necessary. And have a backup for every critical piece of equipment.

That's all just technical advice. Obviously, read everything you can about wedding

photography, look at some of the online galleries of brilliant wedding photographers,

and practice as much people photography as possible beforehand!

Good luck, Steven. I was in a similar situation last year, and I lived to tell the tale (even had

fun!). Who knows, you might even get more wedding work out of it.

My two-year-old D100 works beautifully, produces lovely results from RAW files, and does

not limit me in any critical way. The camera has paid for itself several times over, so the

fact that I paid $1700 does/did not bother me. And selling it to buy a D70 would be a

lateral move that makes no financial sense. The faster flash sync would be nice, but not

worth it for me.

I kept my F100 during the first year I had the D100, but used it only once. I decided it was

too expensive to sit on a shelf, so I sold it when I needed cash. Now of course I wish I still

owned the F100 (gorgeous build quality, faster everything) but the truth is that I almost

always reached for the digital D100.

The only upgrade that really tempts me is the D2X, but it would take a *lot* more billable

work for me to be able to afford/justify such a purchase. Maybe someday...

I find with the D100 (yes, I realize it has a different flash controller than the D2X) and SB

-80DX that the TTL Matrix mode almost always underexposes with bounced flash. But if I

set the flash to TTL without the Matrix icon (push Mode once), bounce flash exposures are

much more accurate.

I'd recommend trying that once before spending more money on the SB-800.

Nikon D100, 50/1.8 lens, Meade ETX-105 telescope, 32mm eyepiece, afocal method

(camera looking through the eyepiece)<div></div>

I can almost guarantee that you've got it on self-timer with the interval set to 2 seconds.

Set it back to single or continuous advance, and then also check the menus to see what

your self-timer interval is set to.

I wish that both ISO and self-timer had indications in the D100 viewfinder! Those are the

two items that I most often forget to reset after doing a project.

Some of the best bang-for-the-buck binoculars are from Pentax. Check out their PCF

series of porro-prisms (8x40 and 7x50 are around $150 each). If you can live with the

bulkier size -- bulkier than roof prism binocs, that is -- you can get excellent optical

quality for a reasonable amount of money. If you have any interest in astronomy, the

7x50s are superb for wide-field star viewing, too, especially when mounted on a tripod.

I often use the 50/1.8 AF-D for this purpose. No distortion, and extremely sharp across its

whole field, especially on a digital body. I also used to have the 60/2.8 but found that for

medium-to-large flat artwork, the 50/1.8 worked better for me.

After two years and some 20,000 images I find I still get around 600 shots using the

original D100 battery. I also bought a spare battery, and with both charged up I can do

pretty heavy shooting for a week without being near an outlet. Nice. And I'm a big fan of

the D100 in general, despite having stepped down in build quality (and AF speed) from an

F100. The D100 just feels right, and I get excellent image quality from its RAW files. Sure,

I would love a D2X but nothing short of that really tempts me.<div></div>

I rarely work with files in the 250MB range, but I routinely edit 50-150MB Photoshop files

on a 1.25GHz 15" Powerbook with 1GB RAM, currently my only computer. While it's not as

fast as a dual G5 would be, or some Windows configurations, it's powerful enough to get

serious work done. The only time the performance drives me crazy is when I fill up the

internal drive and PS (and/or OS X) runs out of scratch space. So I try to always leave 5GB

or more free space on the drive.

I bet the 1.67 would be enjoyable. You might want to increase to 2GB RAM for editing

those large PS files.

I can give another high recommendation for Pro Photo Supply. The folks are

knowledgeable and friendly, they have most everything in stock, and have a good

collection of used equipment too. And not all their prices are higher than B&H: I recently

bought a new Nikon 17-55/2.8 there for $100 *less* than B&H wants.

I'll add to the chorus of praise for the 17-55/2.8. I find it much less geometrically

distorted than the 18-70 (another fine lens for the money). The 17-55 does show a bit of

barrel distortion at the wide end but it's subtle, easily correctable in Photoshop, and not

like the complex wavy distortion of the 18-70.

I have not yet shot any commercial architecture stuff with the 17-55, but my personal

tests show it to be a superb lens at all focal lengths, even wide open. And it better be, for

its asking price.

My D100 does the same thing, and I just discovered it a few days ago. Very strange! I

thought the mirror/focusing screen/prism was just a physical and optical system. Yes, I

realize the gridlines and focus points are superimposed electronically, but that doesn't

change the overall brightness.

Anybody know exactly what's going on here? It's true that the viewfinder is fine (bright)

with the battery in but camera off. Is the camera always drawing electricity to somehow

brighten the finder?

Nolan

I used the 18-70 for a short while and found its image quality to be excellent. But I did

recently move up to the 17-55/2.8 for better shooting wide open in available light. And

except for the state of my bank account, I have zero regrets. The 17-55 produces some of

the sharpest, most beautiful images I've ever shot. Less geometric distortion as well. Very

highly recommended.

You may not want to switch platforms, but for the same price the 15" Apple PowerBook G4

has a really nice LCD that is natively 1280x854. Native resolution is important because if

you want to see a resolution of 1200x800 on an LCD that is natively 1680x1050, the

computer will have to spread 1200 virtual pixels across 1680 physical pixels. The resulting

image will be soft and, depending on what aspect ratio you pick, perhaps distorted.

Note that CRTs don't have this problem: you can run them at less than full resolution and

still have sharp images.

cheers,

Nolan

I had exactly this problem a few weeks ago, with the same equipment. The camera

stopped recognizing the flash when I had the Stroboframe in vertical orientation (flash

hanging out sideways from the bracket). During the wedding I had no time to

troubleshoot, and I didn't have another SC-17 handy (the one item for which I had no

backup...I know, I know). So I just put the flash on the camera to finish the group photos I

was doing.

Later, I discovered that the SC-17's hot shoe was letting the flash flop around a little, so

the flash contacts weren't always touching the hot shoe contacts. I unscrewed the SC-17's

head and inside found four tiny screws either loose or completely out of their holes.

Putting those back in firmly solved the whole problem. They are what keep the hot shoe

anchored in place.

It was really refreshing to be able to take apart and repair a piece of small equipment.

Many items like that are made of molded plastic with no way of getting inside.

So check your SC-17 and make sure all its little screws are tight! Hope that helps.

Nolan