dan_brown14

Jay: Thanks for taking the time to give your thoughtful reply. Bottom line, I'm diving in to

digital, come what may. At this point, I already own PSE3 and View 6, but haven't bought

the license for Capture 4. I don't think I'm going to buy the license, rather, I want to buy a

13"x19" Canon ink-jet and a Spyder to calibrate my monitor. I run with that, then maybe

get PSCS if and when I identify a need. It's just soooo much money, I could get a nice lens

for that ;^)

I should have mentioned that I have Nikon Capture 4 and Nikon View 6 together. So, when

I do a camera transfer, it brings up View to transfer and browse, and then when I edit,

Capture 4 comes up. From within Capture 4, I can resize (like to 800 pixels wide for

posting here) and save as JPEGs for posting e-mailing, etc.

As of today, all the images are stored on my hard drive in the native camera format (NEF of

JPEG), depending on what I shot it as. The trend now is to shoot RAW NEFs unless I need

the shooting speed and capacity, then it's Large/Fine JPEGs.

I am committed to color management, including monitor calibration and color space

management, I'm just not there yet. I use an eMac with 17 flat CRT, and I will always use

Apple computers.

Please keep the comments coming, it's much appreciated!

I am racking my brains on digital workflow. I want to settle on a set of tools, and then get

back to shooting.

<p>

Anyway, I have Nikon Capture 4 ("NC4") (not paid for yet) and it works very well with my

D100. I also just bought PhotoShop Elements Ver. 3 ("PSE3").

<P>

What so ya'll use, or what do you recommend.

<P>

<B>Option 1:</B> Capture and browse with NC4, using it to convert the images for

archiving to CD/DVD. I feel pretty good about how NC4 works and it's comforting that

Nikon will do the best job of getting the nuances our of NEF files, right? But I'm not sure

what file format the output should be, maybe TIFF for archiving? But then, would I convert

them again once I edited in PSE3? I guess so, the edited files would become PSD files.

<p>

<B>Option 2:</B> Just use PSE3 to capture, browse and convert to PSD file format,

archive in PSD and edit in the same file format? I

kinda like this since I would become a full fledged PhotoShop dork, but, does Elements

have all the horsepower I will need, or is the $600 'CS' version a <i>fait acompli</i>?

Honestly, I'm not real thrilled about dropping that kind of cash into software.

<p>

Please give me your thoughts. Also, I am wondering about "preliminary" editing, such as

rotating images, cropping, touching up brightness or contrast, etc.? Do I want this in the

archived images, or should I only apply adjustments to "edited" images?

<p>

Please help.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

I am just getting the digital work flow going here (old time film guy).

I will try to shoot more RAW, but the 4-frame buffer and slow write time of the D100 can

be frustrating. I understand that the D2h would be nice for speed.

I have a trial version of Capture 4, and it works fairly well, but I just bought PS Elements,

so I am dinking with that today. I'm not sure what tools to use for capture, browsing and

file management and editing. On the one hand, my 'gut' says stick with Nikon, but then

everybody seems to use PS. Dunno? I'd like to make a good decision and then work up the

learning curve, without rethinking tools again and again. (I've already worked pretty

extensively with iPhoto and Corel PhotoPaint, which looks to be down the drain now).

Dan, I'm still reading up on imager adjustment and work flow, and I'd like to accept your

private access offer, but maybe in a week or so, once I finish the text that Ellis Vener

recommended, (it's really good).

Later...

I love the 1.5x factor. Turns the 85/1.8 into a 135/1.8, and I always wanted a 135/2

when I shot film, now I have one yeeahaawww!

OTOH, I never much cared for stuff wider than 28, 24 max, so I'm happy with 17 or 18

plus.

YMMV...

Very nice work Tony, I'm sure the bride and her mother will be quite please. Nice blend of

traditional stuff and creative/edgy stuff too.

D2x. Dang. D2x.

I've got to stop thinking about that darn thing, it's only a camera, it's only a camera!!!!

@&&^%$#@

I dropped by the local shop and they had the new Nikon publications; Full Line Catalog,

D2x Brochure, Lens Catalog, and Accessories Catalog. All very nice, with lot's of great

pictures and plennty of specs and details. I'm already drooled all over the D2x

brochure. There was one photo in the D2x of a young lady that set me back in my chair.

Get them while they're hot!

Myron, I totally agree with you. I use a couple of AI primes with my D100, no big deal!

BTW, does anybody still remember handheld meters! Hahaha! Yes, they work with digital

too!

As and for D70 comparro, the D100 finder is much easier on us eye-glasses wearers.

</rant off>

John, it looks like you have a keeper there.

<I>"Anyone bought the 24mm f/1.8, 30 f/1.4..??"</I>

After seeing John's images, I'm giving serious though to the 24/1.8 as my standard-wide

lens for my D100.

Wow! That's a big camera. Do they make a smaller version ;^).

I get you can get $700 for it, note the serial number, the later numbers (180000 & up) go

for more.

Good luck.

He is trying to sell you more.

The AS-15 works great, I use one with my D100 and Alien Bees. The Dynalites don't have

a high trigger voltage.

In fact, I doubt anybody has made "high trigger voltages" strobes in, like 50 years.

I would stop doping business with these guys too, they either don't know photography or

they are playing you for a fool.

I looked at the pics...

He's either a master of white balance, or hasn't a clue.

I've got one that I paid like $125 from KEH, it was listed as "excellent" as looks mint to me.

It's a good lens, solid, fairly linear, and OK in terms of sharpness and contrast, but not

anything to write home about.

In a recent test, I found the lowly 80-200/f4.5-5.6D-AF (plastic-fantastic) lens to be

sharper throughout the range. Granted, it's not as rugged, but I don't abuse my gear, so I

bet it will hold up fine.

I'd be happy to sell you my 70-210 at 1/2 that auction price it you want it, and I'll throw in

an HN-23 hood ;^)

I don't shoot weddings, or professionally, so take this with that in mind...

I've shot the N90s for years, and the F100 for a while too.

If you're going with film bodies due to $$ constraints, I'd get the N90s in a New York

minute, they are great cameras, easily capable for what you are doing, and can be had in

spectacular shape for under $250 any day of the week.

But...

If you are wanting to make money, it seems like a pair of D70 is the obvious choice in

terms of work flow, client feedback, sales, archiving, turn-around, e-mails, etc., etc.

HTH

Thanks Paul, they look very good to me.

I'd like to see some detail of a carefully shot image (landscape) at 100%. Use a prime lens,

tripod, f8-11, infinity focus. Shoot it raw, crop out a 500 pixel by 333 pixel section from

the center and post that (along with the whole image resized to 500 x 333 pixels). That

will give us a good feel for the capability of the D2x, and the lens you use.

BTW, that storefront 18mm shot really shows the barrel distortion of that lens. And, after

doing my own testing at the long end, I'm becoming less and less impressed with it.

I bet the 17-55/28 AF-S Nikkor would be right at home on your D2x.

And thanks for sharing, it's appreciated.

i just read some of gumpysworld. There is some much just plain wrong with what he says,

there's nothing there but uniformed opinion.

Dan:

Keep the 50/1.8, it is an outstanding lens and will serve you well. These tests are dealing

with pretty small refinements and the difference between the 1.8 and 1.4 just isn't that

significant.

Lens suggestions:

The 35/20.D-AF Nikkor is my most-used and possibly best lens for my D100. It gives a

"normal" perspective and is critically sharp. It is fast at F2.0, and it focuses very close,

making useful even as a "macro" lens. This would be my only lens if I could have just one.

The 85/1.8D-AF is another great value. On a DX camera, it's a 135mm lens, which (to me)

makes it a real telephoto that reaches beyond the "portrait" focal length range.

On the wide end, I'm sticking with the 18-70/3.5-4.5G-AF until Nikon comes out with a

fast-wide prime.

Beyond these recommendations, it's really up to your needs. Obviously, the 17-55/2.8G-

AF-S would be great, but it's a pretty large beast for daily and casual use. YMMV.

Good luck.

The flash designed for the D100 is the SB-80DX. Granted, the D70/SB800 is considerably

better for flash, but making that change will cost some $$$. If I were you, I'd pick up a

used SB-80DX and shoot the D100 for another year or so, until the 12MP D200 comes out.

The D70 isn't that much better (IMHO) to be worth the cost of upgrading.

In my mind (with limited experience with digital workflow at this point) Capture assures

full compatibility. I'm using Capture to get the files on my OS10.3 Mac, rotate them as

needed, and then save them as TIFF's for archiving and later manipulation in PS E3 or

some other editing program.

I'm not surprised the 80-200 did well. I recently tested this little plastic lens against the

70-210/4-5.6D-AF and the 18-70G, and found that the cheaper lens was better at all

focal comparable lengths wide open. I'm a bit surprised at your 85/1.8 comparison, but I

believe it.

Good job.

I was interested in wide-open performance, as this is where I find such lenses most useful.

Stopped down, I'd likely go with a zoom for convenience anyway.

Both lenses were clean, no damage or anything, and no filters, both had hoods in place

(Nikon HN-7, which is a deep 52mm screw-in hood. I'm not a lens tester, and it takes

quite a bit of time to runs these, process them, etc. So don't look for much more from

me. The results confirm what I wanted to know (frankly, I was starting to wonder if the 1.4

was a dog, or something, and if I'd bought the wrong lens).

To me, the 1.4 crop is considerably sharper, look at the three arched windows on the

upper floor to the right. With the 1.8, the window molding is barely discernible, with the

1.4, its rather clear. Ditto for the two smaller half-round windows. When I A:B these full

frame on a Mac in Nikon View, the light fall-off of the 1.8 is readily apparent vis-a-vis the

1.4, but as a practical matter, the 1.8 fall-off is probably no big deal.

I think the f1.8 speed of the 1.8 is an optimistic rating, the shutter speed difference and

darkening of the corners leads me to believe it's really a 2.0 w/marketing. Perhaps it's 1.8

inn the center, I dunno. I belief the 1.4 is a good stop faster, which is valuable in and of

itself for me.

I've also posted about my earlier tests re: coma distortion in the 1.8. Again, this may not

be a big deal unless you do night shots with point light sources. At any rate, it does point

to the fact the the 1.8 is less corrected for higher order aberrations, which is expected

given that it has one less element and the price point.

I didn't notice the color fringing, but I'll take a look at the NEF in Capture at 200% or so,

and see it I can notice it there.

The question of value for speed is a personal one, the folks over in the Leica Forum

discusses this a lot, and Leica's lens pricing (e.g. Elmar, Summicron, Summilux, Noctilux)

is the poster child for speed versus value. My wife has had the 1.8 for a few years, and I

just bought the 1.4 this week for $279. All things considered, the 1.4 is a real bargain.