g_c4

<p>Hi,<br>

I am <strong>very</strong> happy with my Nikkor 28-200 G. Razor sharp and a joy to use. Bokeh is nothing to write home about. It isn't fast, though, so hold onto your 50 mm prime (or other primes) for interior shots.</p>

 

<p>Hi, I should've mentioned, I am already bouncing the flash off the ceiling or using a diffuser. These help, but am thinking of more light sources, mounted permanently. Thanks!</p>

<p>I am taking a lot of pictures of my family in my living room at night using on-camera flash (SB-600), using an older DSLR.<br>

I'd like to permanently mount some lights in the room (strobes?), to get better light.<br>

The current room lighting is a combination of halogen and flourescent, which makes for some pretty awful lighting. I could replace the in-room lighting, but what to use?<br>

<br />If I augment the existing lighting, any suggestions on what to use? Should I buy another flash, and mount it on a lightstand? Should I get some strobes?<br>

This is a living room, so aesthetics matter.<br>

<br />Thanks,<br />Gregory</p>

 

<p>Hi,<br>

<br /> I've done this, with this exact combination. It vignettes in the corners of the frame when wider zoom settings are used, but covers the whole film frame for less wide zoom settings. The image quality is decent, but keep in mind the image circle of a DX lens is by design smaller. You can see most of this in the viewfinder.</p>

 

<p>My D2H has this ERR on the 2nd shot with a blank issue, as well. Bought it used, and it started giving me an ERR on the 2nd shot, after every power up. Works great after that. This is annoying, but not a deal killer for me. My solution is to fire off three junk shots after every power up. If I do this, no problem. Whether this is worth getting the shutter replaced ($300-400) is up to you. Mine has been like this for a year or so. It's related to the self-test, which inexplicably fails. My D2H functions perfectly, otherwise.</p>

<p>I have a Canon SD1000. The shutter delay is near intolerable. If I turn off the flash, it's barely tolerable for anything that moves. It is better than my 5 year old Canon G5, but not a lot.<br>

If I turn off the autofocus as well as flash, it's smoking fast. With a 6 mm lens, everything is sharp, regardless of focusing point, from 1 foot to infinity. I've never seen this suggested anywhere, but it really works. You might try this trick.<br /> <br /> For flash photos, if I partially depress the shutter button to charge the flash first, it <em>greatly</em> improves the flash responsiveness, as well. This is lame and tedious, but it really helps.<br>

In general, shutter lag and basically infinite depth of field are major drawbacks for every digital point and shoot I've ever seen.<br>

If neither of these tricks work, it's time to move up to a DSLR. Or get a film Olympus Stylus Epic and enjoy shooting once again! I love mine.</p>

<p>I shot a couple of rolls recently. Under indoor lighting, the colors aren't good at all. I don't agree this is fixable in Photoshop. May I recommend Fuji Natura 1600? Much better in interior lighting. Portra 800 looks fine in daylight, but you don't need it then, do you? I imagine if you have good quality light from a flash it's fine, but under mixed indoor lighting, the colors are really not good. My two cents.</p>

<p>I've been testing Neat Image this week and find it very easy to use. The results are impressive. There is a TINY bit of lost detail, and I do mean tiny, but it is well worth it to clean the ugly red spots out of the shadows of my Nikon D2h high ISO photos. There are examples on flickr, if you're interested (not mine). Free download to check it out, if you're interested. Note: I don't know how Neat Image results compare to in-camera noise reduction that exists in more modern cameras.</p>

<p>This is an aesthetic issue which won't be solved by asking other people. Go to flickr, do some searches on various ISO values and the DSLR you are interested in, find some pictures which are available full size, and judge for yourself. Tip: there is definitely a difference between APS-C and full frame sensors, at higher ISOs.<br>

I find digital noise more objectionable than film grain, but there's less of it, so it's an aesthetic call. The ability of a full frame sensor, like the D700, shown above is really amazing, compared to film.<br>

What's often lost in these discussions is that neither is "better." They just look different. Which you prefer is a matter of taste.<br>

Also, you can buy a DSLR online, test it, and send it back for a refund if you don't like it. Be careful, DSLRs are both expensive and as addictive as crack, as there is always a new one coming out. :-)</p>

<p>I've visited Fireside a couple of times over the last ten years and I must say I always found the people very friendly and knowledgeable. I've purchased Nikon glass there, as well as had a Nikon repaired (they shipped it for me). This is a fairly small store, so selection is somewhat limited. Keeble in Palo Alto is MUCH larger, but not exactly close.<br>

For best price and selection, if I was visiting the US from another country, I'd mail order from one of the very large and well regarded NY mail order houses, and have it FedEx to my hotel. My two cents.</p>

<p>This was helpful, thanks. I always worried about ASA 100 and 400 film, but if this was your experience, I'll worry less about it.</p>

<p>Fuji Provia 400X. Try it, you'll like it. Only a smidgen less definition than Provia 100F, and two more stops. Seriously, this stuff is the bomb. It's also expensive.</p>

<p>You haven't given us much to go on, so the answers are all over the map. That said, the Fuji 645zi is lightweight and a much larger negative than 35 mm. It's basically an oversized point and shoot. Good and sharp, and fully automated, including autofocus. I love mine. It's about the same weight as many 35 mm cameras, including lens. Based on what I've read, the Mamiya 7 is probably better, in many ways. On the other hand, the Fuji is (now) very reasonably priced. Horses for courses.</p>

 

<p>A&I or NCPS work well for me. Both E6 processing and scans, if you're interested.</p>

 

<p>I buy refurbished equipment with some regularity, and have had good results, mostly. However, my "refurb" Tivo has reception problems on Channel 5 (only), which is annoying, and probably why it got returned in the first place. :-)<br>

On the other hand, I've bought about 10 other computer/camera items that were flawless. Probably someone returned them for some reason other than fault (e.g. too big, changed mind, buyer's remorse, etc). The monitor I am using now I saved several hundred dollars on, and I can't find anything wrong with it, other than it was an "open box" from Amazon.What a great deal.<br>

I'd say if you're willing to check something out thoroughly before the return period ends, then you can reap some significant savings. However, don't fail to check it out well and return it if any issues, or you'll end up with a Tivo that gives a pretty awful David Letterman recording. Half the problem was that I was too lazy to box the refurb Tivo up and return it for this minor fault, so keep this in mind, as well. Are you willing to go through the hassle to test and return, if it isn't right?<br>

In most cases, the items are like new. That said, sometimes they aren't. Check the return policy. YMMV.</p>

<p>I don't know if this will help, but the mailers have a significant problem. Since the post office installed automated address readers, they sometimes accidentally read the *return address* rather than the intended, A*I address. This results in the undeveloped film being mailed back to you.<br>

To avoid this issue, I usually cut off the return address and stuff it in the envelope.<br /> <br /> As a side note, at least in my city, USPS seems to be getting increasingly unreliable. You might consider another carrier. YMMV.</p>

 

<p>Browsing flickr and viewing other photographer's work has been a great source of learning and inspiration for me. Best of all, it's free.</p>

 

<p>Thank you all very much. Very helpful advice, and some options I hadn't thought of.</p>

<p>I shoot mostly slide film (Provia 100F and 400X), so don't know much about print film. That said, I frequently am attempting to shoot pictures of family and friends in mixed indoor lighting.<br>

For example, my living room is a mix of halogen and fluorescent. Sometimes with flash. I also frequently shoot in rooms light by tungsten, and augment with flash.<br /> <br /> Are any of the print films more "forgiving" of mixed lighting, especially for skin tones? I was thinking perhaps Portra 160NC or 400. Any advice from those who have a lot of experience shooting print film in mixed lighting?</p>

<p>Another vote for the Nikon 28-200 G. Razor sharp, <strong>very</strong> light weight. Don't let the plastic construction put you off, this lens is the best walkabout lens I've ever owned. It ain't particularly fast, but you knew that already, right. Really wide range and small. Put a 50 f/1.8 in your pocket for indoors.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Upstrap camera strap is really "grippy," but I don't think this is going to solve your problem. As mentioned above, you need to move the weight from your back/neck to either your belt or a roller bag.<br /> To move the weight to the belt, I sometimes use a large fanny pack, for a single camera. But my D2h barely fits. And fanny packs aren't exactly fashionable. But it does work, and my back appreciates it.<br /> I also use a roller bag that I got at a trade show, with hand-built cardboard slots inside to hold the gear. This is really great when I want to carry a lot. It's accessible from the top, which is important--I don't want to have to unzip to switch cameras or lenses. I can haul 20-30 lb of equipment with ease, and easy access. It's a little loud when rolled on pavement, that's the biggest downside. Otherwise, this is a perfect solution, for me. Cheers, Gregory</p>

Gasser's in San Francisco will rent you one, and since this is largely a relative thing ("fast enough"), I'd recommend you just try it yourself. I rented a 180 f2.8 D, as well as a 80-200 AF-D a couple of months ago, and shot them head to head wide open on a tripod, with my D70. At least for the two I tried, the zoom was actually a very tiny bit better image quality. Go figure. As for focus speed, they're both pretty darn quick, but I imagine an AFS lens would still eat them for lunch, based on my limited experience with an 18-55 DX, even with the lame AFS on that lens. This lens is cheap, light, and wicked sharp, by the way.

 

As so many have said before, horses for courses. I thought I'd like the 180, but turned out the 80-200 was only a little larger/heavier, and much more versatile. Your mileage may vary.

Toan,

 

Stunning photos, congrats!

I have been using this lens quite heavily for a year. It's constantly on my D70, and I shoot most every day. The autofocus is SLOW, for sure, on my D70 and F100. If you pre-focus on infinity, then let it pull in focus, it's not bad at all. I don't really need a lot of focusing speed, so this doesn't bother me. The hunting is a pain, for sure, but f/5.6 will do that, what can I say?

 

The 80-200 f/2.8 EF-ID (two ring, no AFS) focuses MUCH faster, to be sure, and it's also screw drive. It also feels better in the hand. But you give up 200-400, as you've noted.

 

I find sharpness to be OK. Not stellar, not bad, just OK. It would be better if I ever used a tripod, but I don't. I occasionally use a monopod, and it improves my odds, for sure.

 

Handheld, I find it likes higher shutter speeds to get good sharpness, at least 1/500th at 400 mm (cropped at 600 mm on digital). Better is 1/1000th. Be prepared to use high ISO, as the lens requires a lot of light. I also feel it is sharper at 300 than 400 mm, and it's definitely better contrast if stopped down by a stop or two, but then the lens is quite slow. Fine for digital, since you can jack up the ISO, not so great for 100 ISO film.

 

The VR definitely works, I can get good shots even down to 1/30th, occasionally. Note that this is a bit of a hit or miss affair, however---it just plain doesn't work every time.

 

The lens is relatively compact and light for the huge range.

 

It doesn't focus close--something like 8 feet or so. So forget about any macro type work.

 

You might try to rent one for a few days from Adolph Gasser in San Francisco, before plunking down your hard-earned cash.

 

This lens is definitely a compromise. Purists won't like it. However, for those who want a long lens to carry around and handhold, this lens can't be beat. Those who use mirror lockup and tripods and don't mind heavy lenses should and will buy the 200-400.

Hi,

 

The results depend on the subject matter---a lot. Some pics require more resolution than others.

 

My experience--I printed up some D70 photos of the London skyline at mpix.com at about 16 inches X 24 inches. They look pretty good to me, and I like a sharp print. From 2 feet or more away, you'll be quite pleased, I think. 20X30 is bigger, though. You could crop a section, as suggested above, to get an idea.

 

If you press your nose up against the print, it isn't nearly as sharp as someone could do with an 8X10 view camera. I've seen large prints made from view cameras, and they are amazing, and a good deal sharper. Thus, as has been pointed out here on photo.net more times than I can count, your format should be determined by your output needs.

 

Cheers,

Gregory