imagestreet

Yeah I have a D3, Pro glass etc. Recently bought an M7 as a carry around camera and for streetshots. Beautiful

bit of kit, very smooth, very quiet, although viewfinder is not as good as the Bessa R2A I had before. I like it but it

doesn't get hauled everywhere as it's too heavy and expensive (I worry incessantly about it getting stolen). Sadly I

would probably not take it or use it anywhere where it would be at risk which is most foreign places, interesting

urban areas, night locations, tube in the evening...all the places where you are most likely to get an interesting shot!

 

Maybe I should sell it and buy a Coolpix...

Check out this comment from someone who was at the launch event...

 

====================================

 

The D3's high ISO is really impressive I'll remain at least somewhat skeptical until we can get a D3 back in the lab and test it under controlled conditions, but Nikon showed some incredibly impressive prints at the event. They had enlargements that must have been 30x45 inches or more in size, comparing identical shots taken with the D3 and Canon EOS-1D Mark III at ISO 3,200 and 6,400.

 

After the disappointment of the D2H, I have to say I was taking Nikon's claims of low noise at high ISOs with a rather large grain of salt. When I saw the aforementioned prints though, I was literally flabbergasted. The D3 didn't just surpass the 1D Mark III, it far surpassed it. Well, that may be a little strong; the Mark III is a fantastic camera, but the difference between its images and those from the D3 was anything but subtle. As I say, I'll remain a skeptic until we can test a production sample of the D3 ourselves, but if the images shown had any basis in reality (and Nikon would be foolish to have doctored them in any way), it looks like there's a new leader in the high-ISO / low-noise derby, and it's the D3.

I had 3 years accumulated dust on my D100 sensor (about 20-30 visible dust bunnies). I bought the Copper Hill pen tool and pecpads to clean it, but wimped out on actually using it for 3 months until I was selling it to pay for my D200. Couple of deep breaths and one pecpad later the sensor was spotless. Tom Hogan used to use this method, but he now recommends the more expensive single use sensorswipes.

Professional photographers favour the square format for medium format cameras because it offers multiple cropping options whilst retaining quality. It is actually quite difficult to compose effectively within a square format unless the subject particularly suits the square shape, and square images are rarely published commercially. To quote the famous glamour photographer Bob Carlos Clarke in an interview with Amateur Photographer - "I've never liked square format cameras...you may as well have a circular format for all the use it is."

Domke F-803 is a great satchel bag for rangefinders and I use it as my primary "out and about" bag as it's easy to carry, holds a stack of gear,and is very low key. Extremely well made - strap goes right round the bag, military specification plastics, superb quality stitching, a brass opening clasp that is very secure but can be opened quicky with one hand, etc.

 

I also own the F-801 (this bigger satchel takes a laptop and Bessa R2 ) which I use for work. I also have an F-2 and F-3x for DSLR Nikon gear. Can't recommend the Domke bags enough for daily urban use although if you have a really expensive body and lenses (Leica) that you want to keep pristine then the Domke probably isn't for you as less padding is used in the Domke bags - theoretically I guess this would lead to decreased impact resistance - the trade off is worth it for me as this makes the bag slim, discreet and comfortable to wear. Most importantly the bag fades after extensive use in a very attractive way - looks even better with age (think Nat Geo Photojournalist)! Heard the Sanfrotto clone is OK although would advise against it - instead of buying a cheap chinese rip-off and paying a large additional shipping cost, why not just get the original Domke bag???

Meter the bright side of the face. Add a reflector on the darkside and make sure there is no more than about 2-3 stops difference between the light side and the dark side. Either average the meter reading or just use the light side reading (do this if you are using digital). This will get you started...<div></div>

I found this to be a problem with my old D100. Nikon apparently set up their camera software to favour successful highlights capture. In practice this can lead to what looks like dark or underexposed pictures that require post processing. Details are on this excellent site:

 

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/custom_tone_curves.html

 

Your options are to (a) upload a custom tone curve into your D200 via Nikon Capture, (b) live with post processing all images in Capture/PS, or © fudge an improvement by dialling in +2/3 stop overexposure to lighten the print at the increased risk of clipping highlights.

Isn't there a gallery for showing photographs? What's the purpose of posting these pictures in a gear forum?

I bought the copperhill cleaning tool and pec pads, but lived with the dust for about a year because I was nervous of cleaning the CCD. Eventually tried it on an old D100 I was selling as it had lots of dust on the sensor. 2 mins process with one pad cleaned all the dust off - no problems. As long as you are careful and follow the instructions you should be OK - remember despite their warnings Nikon actually market a CCD cleaning kit for home users in Japan!

Still got mine mounted on a F100. Beautifully made and ergonomic. Autofocus a bit slow and noisy but lens results compare favourably with my Nikkor 17-55mm, and 70-200 VR lenses. If you can't justify the cost of a Nikkor equivalent I would recommend. CHeck this link for more details...

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/reviews/tokina2880.htm

I have both. Size and weight are comparable, very close in terms of feel - the D200 top plate and focus area control on rear panel are carried over directly from the F100 - digital specific buttons on rear panel and top plate are really intuitive and once past the inevitable digital learning curve, you will have no problems. Only disappointing area is the viewfinder which although better then the D100/70 is not as big and bright as the F100.

Crop demonstrating out of focus face

Some very interesting and useful pointers here thanks. I think that poor DOF management or focus zone issues is probably indeed the issue for the shot attached. For the other 500 odd rejects I think that I need to revisit the manual and experiment with different AF modes. I did use a SB800 flash for some of the later shots (see example) - what confused me was that even these were out of focus! The SB800 apparently releases pre-flashes prior to discharge to calculate the flash exposure - this might have allowed sufficient time for the model to move out of focus. I didn't actually try to focus on the model's faces as this would have led to rather boring compositions (I was hoping that DOF would be sufficient to cover the head). Do pro catwalk photographers use manual or prefocus on a spot on the catwalk to catch movement?<div></div>

Sorry - the exact page url is here

 

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/custom_tone_curves.html

I had the same problem with my D100. Check out this site - apparently it's not actually underexposure, Nikon digital cameras simply err on the side of caution to avoid clipping the highlights. If you had a D70, D100 or D200 you could load one of the custom tone curves - not sure if this works on a D50...

 

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/index.html

Closeup of centre model<div></div>

I just tried a catwalk show for the first time under what I think

was tungsten lighting. Selecting tungsten WB settings gave very

cold colour balance so I picked flourescent WB as this seemed a bit

warmer. I was shooting on a brand new D200 with a 70-200 Vibration

Reduction lens at f2.8 ISO 400 on Continuous AF and I was very

disappointed with the results. Almost every shot was blurred (1 in

20 hit rate with over 600 shots). All of the shots where the models

were walking were clearly out of focus. Continuous AF just didn't

seem to judge the focus correctly. Also the metering didn't seem to

be able to cope with the lighting with either over or underexposure

occuring. An example is attached(this is one of the better ones!)

 

Any idea what the problem is? I think it is one of or a combination

of the following:

 

(1) DOF issue - her legs seem sharper then her obviously out of

focus face. This is confusing as even at 2.8 I would have expected

DOF to pick up her features as well as they are not that far off the

plane of focus. Anyway most of the other shots were so blurred

there was nothing in focus at all.

 

(2) Technique - could be, but I was balancing a 70-200 VR lens wide

open using my knee as a support and at shutter speeds between 125

and 500th sec I feel I should have got a higher % hit rate(based on

previous use of the 70-200 VR on a D100 shooting at lower shutter

speeds at a wedding!)

 

(3) The continuous AF setting doesn't work well under flourescent

light settings (when the lighting is tungsten), doesn't work well

with the 70-200 VR lens, or doesn't work well on catwalk models at

walking pace

 

Anyone else suffered this problem? I've been happy with the D200 in

all other respects so far (ie. daylight static portraits).<div></div>

A camera is just a box, good glass is the better longer term investment, the D50 is fine for your purposes, etc etc. All these are true statements and make a highly convincing argument. So does jogging, giving up smoking, eating porridge... I'd buy the D200 anyway - not because it has great ergonomics, build quality, a bright viewfinder, a much bigger LCD, more pixels and better tonality. I'd buy it because it makes you feel "serious" and for me that means I make an effort to take pictures not snapshots. Don't take my word for it. Try holding a D50 and a D200 and see how you feel then. Get a cheap Nikon/Tokina/Sigma lens and stop down if you feel you need to - better glass will come later (what else is the credit card for!)<div></div>

I have the f1.8 - it's OK, but I see a measurable difference in the quality of the "bokeh" in the pictures within threads discussing the f1.4 (even at 72dpi!) On the brink of selling a mint but sadly underused F100 and the f1.8 to pay for it. 2 things are stopping me - I have just got a D200 and am concerned that the 135mm equivalent focal length will not be practical for anything other than tight headshots. I'm also worried that the "bokeh" effect will somehow be lost with the effective increase in focal length - any pro got the 1.4 with a digital?<div></div>

Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR has fantastic bokeh wide open at 70mm - the minimum focusing distance is not ideal for close portraits at this focal length. Nikkor 17-55mm at 2.8 is just OK. Nikkor 85mm f1.8 is also really good although I've heard that the f1.4 version is the best bokeh of all the Nikkor lenses.

Interesting diary and great pictures - thanks for posting. I got a D200 delivered on the 3rd of January to an unknown "neighbour" as I was at work (I live in a large block of apartments). It's now 8 days later and I still haven't got it. Reckon it was delivered to a Canon user and they cannot bear to let it go! SOOOO frustrating as I have the 17-55mm Nikkor sitting here waiting....

I've never experienced any underexposure or banding from my 5000ED. Are you comparing the scan with a print? Machine prints from Photolabs always correct your exposure and would automatically lighten the print. Additionally the lines might be on the original negative but you wouldn't necessarily see this in a small print like a 6x4 or 7x5 (not sure if you have tried it with a variety of different films). If not you may have a dud...

I went for over a year with soft images from the D100. No option in the end other then purchasing Photokit Sharpener and using it on every shot (even jpgs). Try the following link for curing your dark exposures.

 

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/custom_tone_curves.html

 

Bit annoyed at Nikon for forcing me to buy Capture and Plug-ins for a �1600 camera (2002 price in UK)

The photographer Bill Lemon shoots in midday for some of his glamour shots. He gets his model to look up to prevent dark shadows - gives quite powerful modelling. This works well when the model is naked and not making eye contact with the subject - so this technique may not be ideal for a wedding!

Photoshop by default stores additional picture information (believe this is the EXIF information like camera, lens, film speed etc) with the JPG file. PhotoNet requires you to strip all this information out before uploading - in Photoshop simply use the File/Save for Web function - size it appropriately and in the next dialogue box make sure the "Save as Type" dropdown is set on "Image Details Only". you will then be able to upload these.