tristanlaing

Gawd, why does everyone need to make such huge prints from their DSLRs. I mean, it's the

same as the old days guys - if you want to make super big enlargements, you need medium

or large format. I suppose the very high resolution cameras are now closer to medium format

than 35mm, but even medium format suffers when you enlarge to poster size.

These are great, but they could have been taken with any 50mm F1.8 - Let's get some shots

of the pankake's bokeh!

They have different optical formulas. The D is better I hear.

They will both take great pictures. Pictures come from good light and good subjects and a

good "knack" for getting the right shot. If you're super concerned about sharpness, shoot it

in the middle of its range at F8 and you will out-resolve the D2X (don't quote me on that, but

I woudn't be surprised). If you want super sharpess at all apertures at all focal lengths, spend

ten times as much. But if you get this lens, don't worry about it, have fun, take pictures.

Art is the use of familiar images to reveal the unfamiliar. Since photography speaks in

images, it is perfectly qualified to be art. Whether you dodge and burn it in Photoshop, in the

darkroom, or do any other operation does not alter the possibility of your photograph

"counting" as art. If you are trying to be a photographic "realist", that is a question entirely

distinct from being an artist, although it might certainly coincide. Maybe someone else knows

more about the different kinds of realists in photography. I heard there were 3?

The best, cheapest way to make your 80-200 "longer" would be to buy a D50. People print

nice 12 by 18s and bigger apparently, and 200 becomes 300. Also, there will be less image

degredation with a 1.4 on the D50 because its only using the centre of the frame.

Also, the D50 has better high iso sensitivity than any film, especially when you need to go

through security in airports.

They are somewhat, but the distances they vary over are insignificant in this case. Talking

400-800 feet.

Well, fine if you don't like my picture. It's in focus as much as I could expect at F3.5 with no

rangefinder. I suppose it helps to have a relationship with the horse. At least the light is

natural.

I don't myself have a scanner, but I don't think the photoCD scan could have produced this.

The focus point is in the centre of the image, since the business people are in focus. The

negative looks the same to my eyes.

I took this photo with my Chinon SLR and Chinon 50mm F1.9 lens at about F2.8 I think, perhaps at F4. As

you can see, I used a shallow DOP because I wanted to capture the conversatin of the business types in the

foreground and blur the dancers in the back. However, I only succeeded to blur the dancers in the middle,

the side portions of the background are perfectly in focus. At the sides were there the background is in

focus, the background is a little nearer but not significantly.

Anyone have any idea what could cause this?

http://www.photo.net/photo/4660408

My "classic camera" is a rollei 35 LED, one of the least desirable of the rollei 35 line. It's in brand new

condition. Since I bought it (for 5$, they thought it was broken) 3 years ago I've shot more rolls, and many

more printable negatives with it than with my F90. Something about the simplicity makes me pick shots

that are "simple good". Here is one of my favorites.

http://www.photo.net/photo/3181674

Try some ISO 100 film and the grain should disapear.

Unless... your camera is underexposing. But grease on apature blades should make it OVER

expose. I don't see how a mis aligned element could make the photos "grainy".

It depends what you want to do. Spend more time thinking (and taking) pictures than about

what new lens to buy. That said, buy the 75-150 E zoom and you won't always half to worry

that you don't have the right portraight length, and the speed penalty against the primes isn't

huge. I wish they made an AF version.

Why not get a nikkor 70-300g? or a 70-210 AF nonD (D is much more expensive because of

fast focus, but they are optically the same)

I'd get the 85mm F1.8 if I had the means. If you decide you need 50mm aswell, the 50mm

F1.8 is only 100 bones.

I have no idea. But if it's a nikon - it's probably awesome. I'd recommend something like my

rollei 35 except 1)no auto exposure 2)no auto focus 3) no rangefinder 4) 40mm lens.

that said, it can easily be turned into the most flexible "focus free" camera in the world.

You know, I heard that if you multiply the number of digital zooms by the megapixels, you

get a figure that accurately judges how good the camera is. zoom zoom.

My F90x sometimes reads "low" simply when the shutter speed will be more than 1sec. When

I trip the shutter in this case, however, I still get a perfect exposure.

I've heard that fungus growth affects contrast, not resolution. I've also heard that UV light

kills it. Perhaps leave it next to a sunny window for a couple of weeks?

I'm also interested in the general poverty of information on mounting nikkor lenses on

motion picture cameras.

Is there an adapter between C and EF mount? (I know there is an EF mount video camera). If

so, there is an adapter between F and EF. In fact, mounting nikkor lenses on canon DSLRs is

quite popular it seems.

There is a general assumtion on this forum that you need at least a 500mm lens for

Medium format to equal a 200mm lens for 35mm. This is just a bit confusing to me. I may

be off with this - but MF cameras usually come with an 80mm "normal" lens, right? So,

sixty percent longer lens required for same FOV. 200mm plus 60 percent is 420.

So 400mm, not 500mm. But the other thing is this is what's required if you want the full

size of the MF negative. Since it's so much bigger - you should be able to crop it and still

have a sharper image than a 35mm negative. Of course, if you crop it to the size of 35mm,

then you run into the limitations that MF lenses generally do not resolve as powerfully as

35mm lenses. Is that really true?

It's not your lens, unless your lenses are out of adjustment.

One thing that can ruin large prints is labs that won't scan 300dpi per printed inch.

Frontier machines do this. The noritsus that shoppers drug uses don't. That's ok - I don't

mind that my 12by18s arn't amazing cause they are 6.99$ and I don't look at them super

close anyway.

If you are already using a good 100 speed film, and using your lens to the best of its

ability and you still don't have what you want (and you're sure that your printing is not the

problem), you need to go to medium format. Digital SLR won't help - sure 16mp is a lot

but its not "more" than a fine grained 100asa film, if scanned properly.