markwilkins

Using the correct AF setting helps (and there are a bunch of interrelated settings for

autofocus) but manually focusing a current Nikon AF camera is not going to be as

satisfying as you might imagine unless you're using a fast lens, like f/2 or lower.

The reason is that the focusing screen on these cameras is partially transmissive, to

produce a brighter image in the finder. That means that your eye focuses through the

focus plane to get a sharp image whether the camera's in focus or not, and that makes it

hard to tell whether you've achieved an accurate focus. The only real way to guess is to

use the focus indicator dot in the viewfinder, but it's not much more accurate than using

autofocus.

If you have a fast lens, though, you'll have better visual feedback of what's in focus and

might get better results. I'd say give it a try and see how it turns out!

-- Mark

Who in the world would buy an F5 and use it in program mode??

As for the 8008, by all accounts a great camera. I've never known anyone who owned one

who didn't love it.

Personally, the Nikon everyone hated but I loved was the 2020. Sure the AF barely

worked, but it had a focusing screen that encouraged manual focus and I took some great

pictures with it, a long time ago.

-- Mark

<i>I cannot tell the difference between 10x8 prints from my Summicron and the same size

prints from my Rollei 2.8F</i><P>

Start shooting film rated at 1600 and you'll sing a different tune with this. The Rollei's

results will be dramatically tonally smoother. Of course, you could shoot 800 at f/2 with the

Leica and get back some of that, but not all...<P>

-- Mark

Ben:

Yeah, whatever. I shoot medium format too, but not when portability or inconspicuousness

is at a premium, and neither a press camera or an MF rangefinder are very easy to carry

around the way one would a 35mm camera or APS-format DSLR.

-- Mark

Charles: Probably not, at least at first. While digital has huge advantages for distribution,

film capture has significant advantages over digital -- particularly that exposure does not

need to be as carefully managed on the set because film is more forgiving of deep

shadows and hot highlights, which yields a direct cost savings in terms of the crew's time.

Now, if film is no longer used for distribution, that will greatly reduce the volume of the

major motion picture labs, which might make film a lot more expensive for shooting on-

set, and the cost balance may shift...

-- Mark

Hey, maybe it's just me, but if my camera breaks while I'm on vacation, I'll take twenty

minutes to agonize over it and then go on without a camera. Since I have absolutely no

reason to need to bring pictures back with me, that works for me. Your mileage may vary. :)

That said, I'm currently traveling and if I'd thought of it I might have brought the D70 along.

Oh, well.

-- Mark

You know, that nobody here is making the case for a good rangefinder doesn't mean

there's no case to be made.

I have an extensive Nikon system that I'm quite happy with, but I also own a Leica M7 with

a few good lenses and there are times when I'll use the Leica, no contest. Here's why:

* Autofocus SLRs have been optimized for autofocus, but are pretty unpleasant to use for

focusing manually because they do not provide very good feedback. The focusing screens

are partially transmissive, which makes everything seem sharper than it will be once the

picture's taken, and the electronic feedback is not as precise as I prefer.

* That would be fine if autofocus worked well in low-light situations, but it doesn't. The

low light causes the AF to hunt around and miss the shot. Manual focus with good

feedback makes that a nonissue.

* I find the dual-image Leica rangefinder feedback to be as easy to use under pressure as

any manual focus aid I've ever seen on any camera. With it, even in very marginal light, I

always nail the focus (unless I'm not fast enough, which is one of those tradeoffs.)

* While it's a qualitative thing, many of Leica's lenses produce excellent results shot wide

open. Focused accurately, the results can be quite striking.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think equipment will make you a better photographer, but I

think the practical tradeoffs of the tool make the Leica far more effective for me in low-

light people photography. When I get the rolls of film back, I am happier with a higher

percentage of pictures.

When I shoot in better light at a farther distance, like in a travel photography situation, I

find the difference between the Leica and the Nikon equipment narrows to almost nothing,

and the Nikon equipment gives me speed and flexibility that the Leica doesn't.

And yes, I would seriously consider a digital M rangefinder, because it would share all

those qualities with the M7 I now use, and I'd probably prefer using digital to film.

-- Mark

A D2x and a D70 I could imagine keeping -- after all the D2x is much larger and heavier

than the D70.

A D200 and a D70 is a tougher choice. I'm in the same boat and I also have not been

using my D70.

Unless you REALLY NEED a backup body, I'd think about selling the D70. I'm not sure

under what circumstances I'd use mine at this point.

-- Mark

Sorry if I'm repeating what others have said, but there are a few factors.

First, I think the convenience tradeoff has always been different in studio photography. Travel and editorial photographers have been the professionals who have chosen zooms in the past, and in a studio context it's easier to have a collection of lenses available.

Second, I think that the development of manufacturing techniques for making aspherical lens elements has created a real revolution in zoom lens design. Just about all modern zooms have at least one aspherical element that is used to correct what used to be unavoidable aberrations.

I like using fast primes for the shallow depth of field look, but when traveling, a zoom can be a wonderful convenience...

-- Mark

Also, regarding the warranty, keep in mind that the vast majority of electronic devices of all kinds that have warranty related problems display those problems early, like in the first month or two of use.

I completely disagree that the warranty is as significant a consideration as people have made it out to be. You're highly unlikely to have a failure in a camera that's a year old and lightly to moderately used during that time. A five or ten year old camera that's been heavily used is a different story.

-- Mark

The D70s has precisely the same imaging hardware and software as a firmware-upgraded D70. If the firmware has not been upgraded on a D70, you can download the upgrade from Nikon's web site.

The differences are slightly better AF accuracy, wider flash coverage, and a larger LCD monitor.

According to Phil Askey's dpreview.com website, which does comprehensive tests of these things, the noticeable differences in imaging between a D50 and a D70/D70s are that the D50 rolls off the highlights a little bit so that they don't clip as sharply, and the D50 has a slightly more aggressive antialiasing filter in the imaging sensor, which means moire patterns are less noticeable, but also means that images appear softer.

-- Mark

I'd definitely go for the D70. It's a first-rate camera, and why pay a premium for brand-new as long as it's in good working order?

-- Mark

Greg:

That's not "noise," those are sharpened JPEG compression artifacts, which you were never

meant to ever see. JPEG is designed to do its best to keep those artifacts invisible within

the constraints of how much compression you're applying, but applying post-sharpening

brings them out.

Turning up the in-camera sharpening, which takes place before the camera compresses

the JPEG image, or using raw mode and sharpening yourself, will both give you sharper

pictures without annoying JPEG artifacts.

-- Mark

Not a great assumption. I tend to prefer to use my M7 for low-light photography, because of

the high quality fast lenses and excellent focus feedback, and reach for another camera

under other circumstances. Most recently, that's been a Nikon D200.

-- Mark

No theme? No consistency!<P>

<img width=500 src=http://www.markrwilkins.com/sin_city.jpg>

When you say the shutter seizes, what do you mean? Just that the shutter won't trip when you press the button, or something worse?

In very low light conditions, autofocus can be an issue. The higher-end bodies have better performance in low light, but your best bet is to use the fastest lens you can (preferably f/2 or faster) and if that's no good, focus manually. The latter can be difficult, though, because the focusing screen isn't really ideal for it.

-- Mark

Have to say, by the way, that at the size you're printing, if anyone could use the extra resolution of the D200, it would be you. If you can borrow one, take a similar image with both, and get prints side by side, that would be the best way to tell whether the difference means enough to you to be worth the money.

-- Mark

Damn, I thought this was the other thread where someone was saying "what's your ideal fantasy lens on what body." Sorry. :)

Now that I've read the question: it would seem to me that AF performance is the biggest issue. If either lens is not AF-S, use the D200 on that one.

And no, there's no optimum answer, it's all up to you.

I guess that'll teach me to post in the wrong thread!! :D

-- Mark

M7 with the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH.

Oh, wait, this is the Nikon forum. :)

OK then, F100 or D200, depending on whether I want to shoot film or digital, with the 17-35 f/2.8 or 35mm f/2.

-- Mark

I've heard a number of D200 users say that it produces more film-like images, and I've had that gut feeling myself. After considering why I might feel that way, I suspect it's because it defaults to lower saturation and lower contrast than the D70 or earlier Nikon SLRs. You can manually decrease the saturation and contrast settings on the D70 and probably get a very similar look.

My gut feeling is that the 18-200 is probably a wide enough range that you'll start to notice the imaging defects, even if you're not particularly critical about such things. The 18-70 (which corresponds in field of view to a 27-105 lens in full-frame 35mm land) is a smaller, better-corrected lens and is as long as you're likely to need most of the time.

As for a macro, I agree that getting a manual focus macro, probably used, is the most cost-effective approach, and should work great with the D200.

-- Mark

Nikon service may not need to reproduce the problem to fix it. Disassembly and examination of the lens may well give them a view into the problem that you don't have. I'd say it's worth a shot.

-- Mark

I have both a D70 and a D200. The D200 is by far my favorite of the two, mostly for the

speed of handling. I have an F100 as well and it's much closer to that camera than it is to the

D70.

The extra resolution is not an enormous advantage, but I do find it makes a difference in fine

detail and the scale of noise.

-- Mark

I have the 60mm AF-D and the working distance is very reasonable for cameras with digital

sensors.

Steve: I think your approach works well for the kind of travel and landscape photography

in your portfolio. In a studio setting, I'm convinced there's room for a more methodical,

iterative, constructive approach to photography, though that's obviously not the only way

to work.

Anyway, I've always thought it made sense to start out with experimentation, work out an

interesting technique, and then refine it to the point where it becomes controllable and

expressive. It's in the latter phase that rules of composition and lighting can help guide

the experiment toward consistency.

-- Mark

Paul is of course right. What you need to do is understand not just the "rules" but *why*

images work and don't work in specific instances. That's why I think repeated critique by

someone knowledgeable who understands what you're trying to do and shares your belief

in it is a lot better than trying to learn rules from a website.

Rules of composition and lighting are handy guidelines for designing the aspects of your

image that are NOT intended to stand out and draw attention. If the impact of your image

comes specifically from a perfectly centered composition, for example, the rule of thirds is

irrelevant, but if the emphasis of your work comes from light and shadow, the rule of

thirds is a guideline that can help you ensure that the composition itself is not the subject

of your image.

Also, most of the "rules" are actually hints about how to direct the viewer's attention,

stimulate them with additional complexity, and so on. Knowing a rule by itself is no help.

Knowing WHY a rule exists can help you decide when to use it to your advantage and when

to throw it out. Unfortunately, I know of few good sources for that kind of discussion.

-- Mark