basarab

Haven't used it at a wedding. Yet :) I have used it in an interior maybe almost as demanding (almost because there was no bride to please). A case competition held at the Hilton. Moving the ISO at 800 does the trick in most rooms with enough artificial lighting from ceiling spots. Also I used an SB-600 when close enough. The VR a steady hand will help out for the rest of the situations. You should expect though a rate of failure of about 25-30%. Especially if you have no say in the lighting.

Film is not going away. Just fading a bit. In my opinion the 35mm print film has already less end quality than today's top of the line DLSRs. This is mainly because of the way it is being processed and not because of its own intrinsic properties. However 35mm slides are still going to be above digital for a few more years.

 

The question you must ask yourself is this: can I afford a digital DSLR equivalent in performance to the F100(camera mind you, not the film)? If yes then do the obvious. If no then... do the obvious. (Please do the math on how much the film and processing will cost vs. digital and depending on how much you're shooting).

 

Remember that 35mm film has been invented as a tool for news photographers who couldn'd afford to use LF cameras because they were loosing too many shots (or they were maybe just plain lazy :) ). So 35mm was meant for speed and not quality. If you are looking for FILM quality then a 4x5 is a must. (Tachihara recommended).

 

Myself? I would skip the F100 and go for a LF camera since I would shoot as much with eitherone and the LF is clearly the winner quality wise. But that's me!

 

Take care

Cristi Basarab

Your budget does not allow for any 2.8 zoom. Therefore I would go for a 50mm 1.8 AF D or even better for a 85mm AF 1.8

A view camera lens. Pardon my bluntness, no pun intended, but if you had to ask you do not need this lens.

 

If however I am mistaken and you do need such a lens you might want to consider a Schneider or Rodenstock; even old ones (40 to 50 yesrs) can be at least as good as Nikkors.

I need to make a small observation. I had overlooked the fish eyes because you do not seem intereste in them and also plainly overlooked the AF 20 mm f/2.8, AF 18 mm f/2.8D and AF 14 mm f/2.8D ED since I have not shot with them and the wide zoom 12-24 covers all these 3 lenses' focals.

 

But if you need to clear everything up give those 3 lenses a try and tell us your impressions.

 

Cheers,

Cristi

When speaking about DSLRs, as Shun pointed out, wide really meas ultra wide. A 28 won't cut it. A 24 is just barely. I don't know why you insiste on primes since Nikon doesn't have wide primes that good below 24. However you might try out the 12-24 DX Nikkor and see if it doesn't suit you.

There is no Nikkor DX portrait speciffic lens with the speed you require. You could use the DX zooms available and use them at around 100mm focal but the speed will not be 2.8

 

As in using a "film" lens on a Nikon D body I really see no difference for the worst for all practical considerations. I see differences for the best, but that should make a photographer happy :)

 

I also find the 85 AF 1.8 the best lens in your case with respect to cost, quality and purpose. You could of course go for longer and better lenses(if any available) once your investment starts to pay off.

 

I could rant a bit more and suggest you keep the 85 on a body and the 18-200 on the other as an all-around lens; and sell the ones rendered obsolete by this combination. The only problem with this solution is the 18-200 is kinda hard to come by these days.

 

Best of luck top you!

 

Cristi

 

P.S.: What are you lighting tools? These may actually save your more money from thye price of an expensive fast lens compared to a slower one. Especially indoors.

I'm gonna say what I like best. What you might like, I don't know. For what it's worth here goes: 50 mm AF-D f/1.8. The best all around. For closer crop, such as face portraits, the 85 mm 1.8 fits the bill very well.

 

When Nikon will have a FF DSLR, then and only then, you might think about a 105 mm.

 

Have fun!

Sorry Shun!

 

It seems I missed the info about firmware updates. No news so far though. I guess we just have to wait a bit more.

According to info found at dpreview.com and also at http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-7895-8338 it seems that the main add-on will be the viewer masking feature when cropping in camera. The larger LCD seems a nice touch also as well as the beefier batteries.

 

All that said it seems that the D2Xs is going to be a slightly cosmetized version of the current flagship which is already out of stock in Japan before the upcomming D3X/S hits the market. Doing the math one will notice there have been almost 2 years between the time the D2X was announced and the D2Xs (sept 16th 2004 to june 1st 2006). When looking at the D70, D70s & D200 succesion one will also notice that the timeframe is not all that off (Jan 28th 2004, Apr 20th 2005 & Nov 1st 2005 respectively) which gives us 14 months between D70 and D70s and 19months between D70 and D200. That may lead one to conclude that the upcoming D3 is going to be here around january next year; possible before Xmas 2006 but I kinda doubt that since the pro cameras are tools and not consumer items.

 

We'll see.

I usually carry my D70 camera with me if I'm gonna be out more than half an hour. If less I'll grab my Canon A75. I usually have on camera the 50 AF 1.8 D for various reasons (quality and weight to name just two). If I plan on staying out more I'm gonna bring the 18-70 and 70-300 in a small shoulder bag (Lowepro) together with extra memory, extra battery and whatnot.

 

The 50mm lens is a beauty in itself and also because it forces me to photograph and not get lazy. I chose this particular focal lenght for portraiture. I do have in mind a 12-24 but that's after I'm gonna get myself a job :)

 

Have fun guys

It's not a good option, it's an excellent one.

If the D70 is in good working condition then go for it. D70 is prefferable to the D50.

It stands for 6cm x 4.5 cm. To get a 6x6 out of it you'll have to crop to 4.5x4.5 and then enlarge.

When using a good tripod the only limitting factor will be the maximum shutter time available.

 

For landscapes you can use which lens you prefer.

Thank you Patrick. However I don't have personal experience with the 50mm 1.4 :( I don't consider the few dozen pictures I shot with it a real experience. So I only dared offer advice from personal extensive experience.

 

If I'd have to guess I'd say that the 1.4 is not too much better than the 1.8 to justify the price difference since the 1.8 is already almost top notch. But then again I didn't use the 1.4 so I'm not going to guess :)

 

In the end, the quality of a lens is given by the pictures one makes with that lens; and the most important factor in achieving that final photo is one's own skill, therefore... ;)

 

Cheers y'all

 

Cristi

DOF = "total region of adequate focus" (according to Ansel Adams; btw: I strongly recommend reading "The Camera" by AA if you haven't already done so)

 

The ideea basicaly is that you only have one plane with real focus; as geometry will tell us, a plane has no depth at all, but rather only two dimmensions. However, there are two regions of space right before and behind the focus plane wich appear to be in focus to the human eye even if they are not really in focus. The combined space of these two regions is the DOF region.

 

Optics tells us also that if one is using a small apperture one will obtain a larger DOF region; therefore the aperture and size of DOF are inversely proportional. Which is why if one is going to use a lens stopped at f/1.8 or f/2.8 one will get half the DOF compared to f/4 or f/5.6 respectively.

 

Also if one doubles the subject distance one will increase the DOF four times since the DOF is proportional to the square of the subject distance.

 

If one reduces the focal length by half then one will obtain a DOF increased by a factor of four. Because the DOF is inversely proportional to the square of the focal length.

 

Therefore in your particular case, using the 70-300 at the 300 end will give you a DOF 36 times smaller than a 50mm lens would (same f stop considered).

Since your 70-300 has a maximum f stop at f/5.6 at 300mm .... you get the idea(even at f/1.8 with the 50mm prime you'd still have a DOF about 20 times bigger than with the telezoom).

Using the 18-70mm lens (compared to the 50mm) will pretty much give comparable results with respect to DOF at the same apperture and at 50mm focal length. The only 2 criteria here becoming the maximum aperture available (4 in the case of 18-70 compared to 1.8 for the 50mm prime); in wich case the 50mm lens will yield a smaller DOF(almost halved) and also the fact that the prime is the sharpest (personal opinion; I own all three of them).

 

Now, I want to appologize if the small physics presentation proved to be a bore and I want to recommend you buy the AF 50mm 1.8D and use only that one for portraiture. To ensure focus in case of small chidren close to you I reccommend using the AF-C setting on your D70.

Incidentaly Photodo.com rates the 50mm 1.8 as the sharpest lens in the Nikon arsenal along with the 85mm 1.8 and the 55mm f2.8 primes (report is here http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/NiAF50_18-444.shtml; Photodo accidentally has a photo of the 1.4 lens posted with that report).

 

I hope I've managed to help a little,

Take care

 

Cristi

If possible I would replace the 18-70 with the long 18-200 because it's worth it. Asa walkaround zoom it is great. However, the primes.... I'd keep them. The only reason I see for selling the 85mm lens would be financial. And I've always found ways around that. It's too good to sell it. So please, do yourself a favor: rent or borrow the 18-200 for a short while to test it. If you like it enough, sell your 18-70 and buy the 18-200. But DO NOT sell the 85.

if you're on a budget then by all means go for it; this lens (18-70) has one ofr the best price perfomance ratios in the Nikkor offer; with respect to focal lenght and crop factor the guys before me said it all;

1. It depends largely on what do you shoot and on how often you need to change the lenses. Some subjects allow the use of primes some others require zooms.

 

2. In my experience, when I shoot a prime I usually look at the scene before me imagining it through the prime I'm using. I do the same when using zooms since I only use certain focal lenghts from a zoom. It isn't all that often that I have the opportunity to compose the image with a zoom. I usually compose it before hand with my eyes.

 

3. A zoom comes in very handy. You must also pay the price for the maximum speed of f2.8. Which is the reason I have to use primes since I do shoot a lot indoors in ambient light ande outside at night handhled.

 

4. In the end my personal preference goes to primes. I guess I'm a bit nostalgic about it. Plus they are are better optically as a thumb rule since they are simpler to build.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=555310

Taking into account your test data the answer has to be yes. A good lens will give better results than a bad lens. No matter the camera. Because the sensor will return what it sees in the first place. Which is what the lens resolves.

 

As for the weakest link in the chain... well, now, that's the photographer. Everything else can be fixed technycally. In the end it is not the camera that is making the picture, but the photographer.

 

Have fun making photos!

Cristi

I don't know if you can move around the field or not. If not then you have to be stuck in a standstill position. In this case you would have to be using a 70-200 otherwise you're photos will only be general population and duels at the basket. No dribling in the middle of the field. If you can move around then you can use the faster 50mm lens but will have to use an on camera flash since you can't exactly carry the others with you.

 

Anyway, in either case if it is possible to find good spots around the playfield it would be greate to use off camera flashes.

 

Another solution would be simply to improve the lighting system in the gym altogether. But that's another story.

I'm no expert in the field, but I'll try to voice my opinion in case it will help you.

 

First it depends on the size of your studio.

 

Second, the lighting.

 

The above points are important so you can realize how much you need to move using a prime lens to "zoom" in and out using your feet. Because a tripod does not seem necessary in your case.

 

If you have enough space available use the 85 mm only. Try it out in a mock session(without a model), or if you have a model willing to help and time to do it try it out in a real test session.

 

You'll find that the 85 mm will do the job very well in such a way that you may not need at all to swap.

 

If you do not have enough space then your left with the 18-55 and maybe the 85, but you will be using the 18-55 mostly.

 

The 70-300 is not that great at portraits (a lot of regions are out of focus). You can do a nice job with it but just not too close. The 85 is good.

 

No matter what kind of camera you use (film or digital) the 50 1.8 (cheap, fast and sharp) is the best to have in such conditions. Try one and see if it is not worth to buy it.

 

Last but not least, shooting with a prime normal or medium tele requires self discipline and a different phylosophical approach. Some people say. Others say it is oldfashioned.

So it is up to you what you chose.

 

Cheers and have fun!

Cristi

Above my response you will find very good information and pertinent oopinions about noise.

Since you're not using your cameras in a jungle or rough environment (conflict zones, desert, rock, marshes etc.) you really don't need the D2X. If you want it and can afford it, by all means, go get one. It is beautifull. But for what you said you need the D200 will do the job wonderfully. With respect to the available light it is not the camera that will help you out, but rather a good fast lens. So think also about a 50 mm 1.8 or 1.4 and also a 85 mm 1.4 or 1.8.

 

Cheers,

Cristi