conrad

I used to use a Nikon 5400, which is not too entirely different from the 8800 in function. Maybe these suggestions will help:

 

- Customize the My Menu button so it has all the options you will need the most and none of what you can get to from another button or dial. For example, there's no need for having things like ISO, white balance, and the image size settings on My Menu when they are setting right there on the mode dial. There's also no need to keep anything on My Menu that you are only going to set once and never touch (such as Image Adjustment or Image Sharpening in my case). For example, on my 5400 I only had Metering, Speedlight Opt, shooting mode (single or continous), auto bracketing, focus options, and BSS. Everything else was either a set and forget or could be found on the mode dial.

 

- Lean how the AF system behaves. On the 5400 the nine point AF system was slow, hardly usable in low light, and didn't always focus on what you wanted. If you disabled the AF Area Mode it forced the system down to a center point only mode that was much, much faster and able to focus in much darker situations. You just had to focus and recompose. With landscapes and scenics you'll probably be able to get away with the AF system's landscape mode, but for anything else see how setting AF Area Mode to Off goes. With your N70 you would have had to focus and recompose, so in this respect your 8800 will handle much like your N70 does.

 

- There is next to nothing you can do regarding slow write times. All I can suggest is check some other forums and see if you can find any write time reports with the 8800 using different brands of cards. Different brands of cards will have different write times in different cameras. In my 5400 I found that SanDisk Ultra II's were faster than SimpleTech cards, but your mileage may vary.

 

- To make the camera recycle quicker you can turn go to Review Options in the Set Up menu and set it to Review Off. This sets the camera to not display the image you just made, but in JPG shooting mode makes the camera get ready for the next image in under 2 seconds. With it set to Review On it will recycle in 3 seconds. In raw mode it takes the 8 seconds for the camera to be ready for another shot.

 

- Learn to use the raw mode. This is where you can get the most image quality out of the camera, which you'll need every drop of if you plan to make 20x30's. Use quality raw conversion software on your PC to process the files. Not that crappy Nikon View or Picture Project junk that comes with the camera. Either Adobe Camera Raw or Nikon Capture should suite nicely. Yeah, it will take forever for the camera to recycle for the next image, but your adjustment options in post are far greater than you get shooting JPG's. See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ for more information than you probably care for about all the benefits of raw for landscape photography. Besides, that mountain or tree probably isn't going to go anywhere in the next 8 seconds so relax. Study the scene and think about your next image until the camera is ready.

 

- Learn how to read and use the histogram the camera displays for the images in its playback mode. The histogram is your light meter on steriods. See the URL I mentioned in the last paragraph for more info than you probably care for on that one too.

The biggest barrier to this kind of camera is the angle at which the light hits the sensor. APS-C DSLR's work as well as they do because the light from the lenses is hitting the sensor at fairly straight angles. With image sensors, the detector in the photosite resides down in a small pit. If the light is coming into the pit at too great an angle a shadow is created over the detector by the pit walls. This is probably the main reason why Leica used to say there would be no digital M until the Epson RD-1 came out.

 

The Epson RD-1 is the first step in the direction towards a APS-C sensored compact digicam. Here they figured out how to design a system that lets the rear element get close to the sensor without vignetting too badly. It still vignettes, but the amount is usually pretty managable. Between advances in microlens designs and in-camera image processing systems I suspect we'll see an APS sensored compact within the next five years. That is unless someone figures out how to make 1/1.8 or 2/3 sensors produce images as clean and as detailed as DSLR's at ISO 1600.

That's an easy one. Konica Minolta A2 or A200. The zoom is the equivelent of 28mm at the wide end, and it's controlled via a manual zoom ring. You can work zoom in and out to your hearts content in the video mode. You're movie length is limited to a max of 15 minutes, though.

I would keep the Sony F717 because even after you have a DSLR a good compact digi is always handy.

 

As to the rest, if you have zero plans to ever go back into a darkroom than I see little reason to keep much of any of the film gear. If you're going to use film without a darkroom then to get the best results you'll be getting it processed by labs and scanning it at home. To get a scanner that will do the Linhof and Rollei any justice you'll have to spend some serious funds. Those Epson flatbeds won't unless all you want are small prints.

 

Keeping the Nikon F2 kit would make sense if there's a particular flavor of 35mm film you really like or if you plan to make an extended trip off-grid. There's lots of used Nikon AI lenses around, so replacing your questionable 28/2.8 would not be a problem.

 

For what it's worth, before I migrated to all digital I worked with 35mm and 120 digitally. I scanned 35mm film with a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II and 120 with an Epson Perfection 2450. The quality I get out of a good 5-8MP raw file, DSLR or compact, surpasses the output quality of both of these scanners. I still keep a few 35mm cameras and one TLR around because I like to look of B&W C-41 films, but beyond that everything is done with digital capture now.

After 4-5 years, if the shutter fails in your D70 you probably won't mind buying a whole new DSLR. In that time they'll become much better and cheaper than your D70.

The Nikon 24/2.8 is a good choice. I have one and it spends a lot of time on my D70. I keep the 35/2's HN-3 shade on it. The idea about a 20/2.8 sounds good too. I keep thinking about that one. Another affordable idea is a Tokina 17/3.5 ATX Pro. It gives you the equivelent of a 25mm and is reputed to be a very good lens.

The image quality between the two is probably quite similar. I think the choice might be better based on how much would you miss 18mm against how much do you want the VR feature. If you go with the latter, you could pair up the 24-120 with a Nikon or Tokina 12-24 to regain the wide end, but then you're hauling around more lenses.

If you can bring yourself to live with 4MP a Canon S400 or S410 can be had at excellent prices. One of the best pocket rockets ever made, I think.

 

You might want to research the Canon SD500 a little more. There have been some questions regarding it's image quality. See DP Reviews Canon Talk forum. Also, I found it's ISO 400 studio shot in the full review on the same site to be rather poor.

Hi, Neil. If you are on a pretty tight budget here I would recommend the digicam over the DSLR. Unless you really must have the DSLR's low noise at high ISO's, you would probably get more bang for the buck out of something like the Olympus 8080 you're considering. The built-in lens on a camera like that will be of much better quality and of greater range than the kit lens that comes with the Digital Rebel. You get a very capable camera in a very compact package, and then you can put more time and money into learning how to use it and how to make good prints from it. DSLR's are nice, but if funds are limited you'll get more value out of a good digicam, good quality image editing software, and a high-quality inkjet printer than you would out of a DSLR and some lenses, the crappy image editing software that came with the camera, and some cheap inkjet.

 

Some other digicams to consider are the Minolta A2, Minolta A200, Olympus C-7070, Nikon 8400 and 8800, Canon G6, and perhaps a Nikon 5400 (which is an excellent deal with the current rebate if you're in the US).

Why not just keep it simple for a while? The G6 is nice. A Canon S70 would probably be a good choice too. A 28-100 equiv zoom, very compact, decent ISO 400 performance for it's class, excellent JPG's, and a raw mode if you want it. A Nikon 5400 is worth a look to due to the $200 rebate if you're in the US. A couple less MP's than the S70, but a lens in the same range as it and an articulated LCD screen like the G6. I like digicams with zooms wider than an equiv or 35mm and raw modes that don't lock the camera up for ages, so a Canon S70 or Nikon 5400 are my picks for something simple.

 

Anyway, a good compact is probably what I would do. Even if you get a DSLR again later, a good compact digicam is always useful.

This guy seemed to like his;

 

http://photo.bun-hay.net/review/24-50d/24-50d.htm

If you're buying in the US Nikon is running a $200 rebate on the Coolpix 5400. That brings it's final price after the rebate to between $300 and $250. It's a very good camera and definitely worth a look.

Good story. It's easy to forget sometimes that many pros are probably not the gearheads we think they might be. They're just interested in the tools that they need to get the job done, and beyond that they have little interest. Sometimes whatever they are using might not even be the ultimate tool for the job, but because they've spent so much time with it, can make it work so seamlessly that it doesn't get in their way, and others in their field use the same thing, they go with it.

 

On another forum I had the honor of conversing with a long time street and pro photographer. I was looking through his web site and asked him what he used for a square image there. I asked him if he was using a Mamiya 6. He replied that he used a Leica M and had no idea what a Mamiya 6 was.

 

I'll agree with him regarding the Nikon 5400. Great little camera.

Yup. You want the Konica Minolta FS-1100 flash shoe adapter. It slides onto their proprietary mount and gives you a standard hotshoe.

I've found that a Domke F-5XB seems to work pretty nicely for my D70. It has two adjustable dividers that are tall enough to keep things from getting mixed up if the bag is turned over. It's wide enough to take the D70 with the kit zoom, but the hood needs to be in the stow postiion, and leave enough room for the charger, AC cord, CR2 holder, and another short lens. In lieu of a lens you could stow an Ultrapod and other stuff. There's a slim pocket under the top flap that will hold CF cards very nicely. Here's a page on it:

 

http://www.tiffen.com/domkecat08.htm

 

In my bag I seperate the dividers enough so the D70 can go in the middle. Then the charger and spare battery go in one end and a lens or whatever else in the other. Under the top flap is a zipper that goes across the top of the bag. If the zipper is open, but the flap is closed, you could probably reach in and grab the Ultrapod if it's stowed on one of the ends.

 

I'm not sure what to offer regarding your request for a non-camera-bag looking topload bag. A satchel-type bag would be your best bet.

And true to form, the first post recommends a Canon DSLR. You'd think that someone wrote a script to do that around here.

 

I would highly recommend that you upgrade your P&S. There are so many advantages to them over a DSLR that it is difficult to list them all.

 

The fact that the built-in lenses on these cameras are often of excellent quality is one. Usually of better quality than the kit lenses that come with DSLR's or the cosumer grade zooms. If you get a P&S with a good zoom range then you may have every focal length you need right there in one camera. No need to haul around other big, heavy lenses.

 

The compact size of the P&S models makes them very easy to carry around. For example, the Canon G6 would fit in a purse or other small bag very nicely. It's pretty hard to get pictures from a camera that sits on the shelf.

 

A P&S like a Canon G6 will give you the ability to frame pictures from viewpoints that do not match your eye's POV. Flip out its articulated screen and you can frame pictures from up high, down low, and even with the camera pointing at you.

 

The improvement list is LONG, and there are many threads on this forum that describe them, so I won't repeat everything here.

 

But to answer your other questions, the image quality from most any quality 4-5MP or better digicam is going to look better than what you would get out of a low-end film scanner. It will also be easier to work with in a quality image editing program. With proper exposure an 11x14 print should be very possible with cameras of that resolution or better, DSLR or otherwise. Regarding image quality from P&S's vs DSLR's if you're shooting within ISO 50-100, and your exposure is good, with a P&S it will usually be pretty hard to tell the difference in print between its pictures and those from a DSLR. With the DSLR you will see improvements outside of this range. Lower noise at high ISO's, less noise in the shadows, better exposure latitute due to better shadow detail, etc.

 

In the kind of pictures you stated that you take (outdoors, scenery, flowers) either choice will do fine up to 11x14. A P&S like the G6 might have an edge in the macro department though.

"Shutter speed,lag time.. is the D70 much faster than the coolpix 8800?"

 

Yes, the shutter lag is much shorter on the D70.

 

"Is the quality of picture much different ..d70 vs 8800 coolpix?"

 

Yes, but it would be near impossible to tell the difference in print if you keep the 8800 at ISO 50 or 100.

I'll second the notion for the Nikon N75 as a film backup. Like was said, it's cheap and there's a $30 rebate for US buyers. Very lightweight and compact. The viewfinder assembly is the same as that on the D70 but without the sensor crop. I think the AF system on it is very good considering the price of the camera.

 

As for a B&W film, try one of the chromogenic types. The ones that get processed in C-41. Like Ilford XP2 Super or Kodak 400CN. You can get these souped at any local minilab. Tri-X or TMAX is good stuff, but a completely different process. You'd probably have to send it out if you wanted someone else to do it. You could do it yourself too if you don't mind messing with the chemistry and taking the time.

I've had a Nikon 5400 for about a year now and I've been quite happy with it. Before I bought it I was considered the Olympus C-5060, but chose the Nikon because from the reviews it appeared that the JPG quality was slightly better and no dealer in my area had a C-5060 that I could put my hands on.

 

The only complaint I have is that you cannot leave the camera at the auto levels for the sharpness and image adjustment settings. It has a tendency to kill fine detail if left there. Once I set mine to normal for both life was better. Also, the 5400 may have faster shot-to-shot times than the Olympus in raw mode. Using SanDisk Ultra II cards I had raw shot-to-shot times of 3-4 seconds. Every report on the Olympus that I read reported 6 seconds. If you decide on the 5400 and want the raw mode you may have to do a firmware update to get it. When these cameras were new they didn't have a raw mode. Nikon added it at around the middle of last year via firmware update, but I don't know if the ones being sold today have the newer firmware or not.

 

Oh, and spare batteries for the Nikon cost less.

 

You'll probably be happy with either camera, though.

Why not just fix the distortion:

 

http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/

 

Also, I would not get hung up on "only" 6MP. The only DSLR's on the market in the in the Pentax's price range with more pixels is the Canons with 8. Not that big of a difference, especially considering your kit of K-mount lenses. Also, I would not discount the *istDS just because it means you need to buy more memory cards. It's an excellent camera. In some ways better than the *istD. For lenses to meet your wide angle requirement check out the Pentax 14/2.8 DA (equiv to 21mm) or a Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 EX (equiv to 18-36).

 

But yeah, if the Oly 5060 is serving you just fine with the exception of the distortion issue (which can be fixed in post) you're probably better off sticking with it given the environment. Even if you decide to get the Pentax I would say keep the Oly.

As an owner of a Nikon 5400, I can tell you that yes you can use this camera for action shots depending on the conditions. It won't replace an SLR, but it can be done.

 

The best stratedgy is to use either manual focus or prefocus. Unfortunately, in manual focus mode the camera does not report what distance you have the lens set to. It only shows a bar graph going from a flower to a mountain. However, I did a little digging on the internet and found the following chart:

 

First Bar

Click: 1-29

Corresp. 1 cm/click, covering 1cm-29cm

 

2. Bar

Click: 1-29 +8 click

covering 29-39 cm

 

3. Bar

Click: 1-29 +2x8 click

covering 41-60 cm

 

4. Bar

Click: 1-29 +3x8 click

covering 64-108 cm

 

5. Bar

Click: 1-29 +4x8 click

covering 112-195 cm

 

6. Bar

Click: 1-29 +4x8 +10 click

covering 217-Infinity

 

The clicks mentioned correspond to the detents on the control wheel. With this you can manually set the focus to a given distance. Considering the wide DOF of the lens you don't need to be exact. For wide angle work between 5.8 and 7.2mm (two quick taps of the w/t control puts the lens at roughly 7.2mm), I just set the focus at infinity and from f4 and smaller everything from around 1m to infinity is in focus.

 

Regarding prefocusing, it would probably work best to make use of the AE lock button. Frame the scene for exposure, push and hold the AE lock, recompose and set focus with the shutter release. Alternately you can also put the AF function onto the AE lock button just like you can with many SLR's. You can also speed up the AF system by turning off the multi-point AF system. This drops the camera back to a center-point only mode. It focus much faster in this mode, and there is also the advantage of improved low-light AF performance.

 

There is also the continous AF mode, but I can't speak to its performance. I've never used it.

 

Anyway, after deciding on a focus stratedgy you prime the camera for exposure with a half-press of the shutter release. Once you get the green light after the half-press, the shutter will release with no perceptible delay on the full press.

 

At $200 I would say that it's hard to go wrong with the 5400. Another perk is that it's response time in raw mode is pretty good for a P&S digicam. Using Sandisk Ultra II CF cards my 5400 is only locked up 3-4 seconds after releasing the shutter in raw mode. JPG performance is good, and using Adobe Camera Raw the results from converted raw files is excellent. I've been quite happy with my 5400.

This one does:

 

http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/MiniD.html

 

And there are some digital backs for medium format cameras that do.

 

Outside of that, your best bet is probably one of those high-end 8MP compacts and crop the pictures to square. You're left with around 6MP or so when you do that.

Is anyone here using external shoe-mount viewfinders on their digital

cameras? I'm considering the purchase of a Voigtlander 28/35

auxillary finder for use on my Nikon 5400 and was curious as to anyone

else's experience with something like this.

What you want to do is stick to the wide angle end, switch to manual focus, and go hyperfocal. The Sony V1 is has a sensor size of 1/1.8" and the wide end of the zoom is 7mm which is the equivelent of 35mm on a 35mm camera. 7mm focused at 2m at f4 puts everything from about a meter to 83m in focus. And with that Sony I think there is no need to half-press the shutter release when the focus is set to manual. I think it continually adjusts exposure and if there's no focusing to be done as soon as you mash on the shutter release it grabs the picture. Try this out and see how it goes.

 

I've done work this way with a Nikon 5400 and a Minolta A2. The Nikon needs a half press regardless so it can lock exposure. The A2 is like that Sony with no shutter lag that I can discern when it doesn't have to focus.

There are also some Photoshop tricks you can pull to fake the blurred background look. Take these images, for instance:

 

http://homepage.mac.com/jerin357asp/PhotoAlbum30.html

 

This guy walks around Times Square with a Leica and a 21mm or some such superwide. In other words, DOF in spades. He uses gausian blur and some other tricks to blur out stuff and force the center of attention. Not the same photographic discipline, but it shows what's possible.