sebastianmoran

<p>I shoot portraits in available light with 50mm on a D300 or with 85mm on a D600.</p> <p>I select continuous AF, modest FPS so the camera can adjust focus between shots, single point AF, and frame loosely. Then I put the single AF point on the subject's eye and keep it there while shooting. I tighten the framing in post.</p> <p>I have tried Manual Focus with the green dot and it's simply hopeless for anything other than a static shot on a tripod. I want my attention on the subject, not on the lower left corner of the viewfinder.</p>

<p>Hang in there, Maryann. It's just different; it will do all the things you are mentioning, just in a slightly different way than you are used to.</p>

<p>I have kept the 18-70 from the D70 days. I still use it.</p> <p>I'm sure it's not the best mid-range zoom lens. But, it may be the best mid-range zoom for $130 used.</p> <p>A little story: Two years ago, a pro photographer doing group photos at an event had a malfunction with his pro f/2.8 zoom. He borrowed my 18-70 to complete the shoot with good results.</p>

<p>Boris, replying to your last comment:</p> <blockquote> <p>The lenses I have Brad are top of the line at 3000 dollars per new lens and that coupled with exactly the fact that most lenses are sharpest in the middle I just do not understand the logic behind thinking that a small frame medium price lens will top a 180 CF Zeiss. Sure a 3 grand worth of canon lens will be great but I can't see how a 800 dollar lens produced today in china will be somewhat better just because it is intended for digital.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>A $100 55mm f/3.5 micro Nikkor will be better for your "scanning" task because it is optimized for a subject-to-image ratio in the range you are intending. Your fabulous Hasselblad glass, and it truly is fab, is not optimized for macro focusing. I suggest it's worth the $100 gamble to try this. </p>

<p>Boris, I support your effort for more pixels. I've done large prints from multi-exposure stitches.</p> <p>For a high-resolution capture from film:</p> <p>- Use a dedicated macro lens. For your project, to get 120 MPx, you'll be making several shots. Perhaps 6 shots at 1:1 on a DX sensor DSLR. For the highest quality, you'll want a lens optimized for 1:1; this would be the Olympus 80mm bellows lens or the 75mm APO Rodagon D 1x. The usual macro lenses are optimal at more like 1:3 or 1:4 and normal lenses are way out of their optimum range.</p> <p>- Or, perhaps you'll make more shots at 2:1 on a DX or FX camera. For this, a macro lens reversed will be pretty close to optimal. I'd be inclined to use a manual focus lens, the 55m f/3.5 or f/2.8 Micro Nikkor.</p> <p>- You'll have to find a way to illuminate the original consistently, and shift to capture different parts of your original. Also, you'll need to hold the original flat.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Dilom, I use the same lens on a D300.</p> <p>FWIW:<br> - I bought a very good filter, and I leave it there.<br> - I shoot birds with a monopod at Shark Valley, Wakodahatchee, Green Cay, etc. where one can get reasonably close. <br> - After a lot of watching on eBay, I found the Nikon drop-in polarizer (it's a CPL-1S according to <a href="https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/21604/~/slip-in-circular-polarizing-filters">this Nikon page</a>)</p>

<p>I'll add my vote for the NEX-5n. One of the real joys of this camera is focus-peaking which I think is better implemented on the Sony than in other cameras. Another is the articulating screen which puts the camera more where I want it for portraits. Produces excellent results with SLR lenses on adapters. Only recently upstaged (by the Sony A6000) as my favorite portrait camera.</p> <p>FWIW, provided you are going to do manual focusing, just try the $20 adapters, you don't need the precision of the $200 adapters.</p> <p>Buy your 5n today in excellent condition from KEH for $235-255. </p>

<p>Here's a recent sample, Sony A6000, Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4 SL II lens (Nikon mount) with adapter, ISO 400.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/140629-Michael-Portrait-DSC0651-750.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>My favorite portrait camera these days is the Sony NEX. Had a good time with the NEX-5n and now using the A6000. I'm pleased with the image quality, low light performance, focus peaking for working with MF lenses, and the tilt-out screen gives me a lower camera position which I often like.</p> <p>Shooting with the Sony 50mm f/1.8, looking at the 55mm Zeiss, and enjoying several MF lenses.</p>

<p>Watch eBay… A while ago, I found a seller with new old stock N-90 film doors.</p>

<p>You'll enjoy the upgrade. I went from D70 to D200 to D300 and really noticed the difference at each step. </p> <p>I did not try manually focusing with any of these cameras. I'm surprised you were able to get good results with MF on your D70.</p>

<p>The assertion in the article is that the manufacturer distributed fast drives, got excellent reviews, then changed components reducing performance. </p> <p>I have no idea if the assertion is true. But, if it is, that sounds shady to me. If it is, that's a sophisticated bait and switch. Who cares about minimum standards of performance. Reviews are important; all the manufacturers look for good reviews.</p>

<p>Emily, for what it's worth, there are a lot of good images made hand held. Most of mine are hand-held. You have to be careful in technique. How you stand and hold the camera. Use higher shutter speeds.</p> <p>No, the image quality hand held will not be as good as with a tripod. Critical examination will show this. I've been surprised at times. </p> <p>But, there are a lot of good images from hand-held shots.</p>

<p>My suggestion: Learn to shoot with available light. Get a fast prime lens.</p> <p>Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX for $200 is a bargain. Or shoot portraits with a 50mm f/1.8 G. Or the highly rated Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $300.</p>

<p>Howard, yes, looking at the full headers on the message, it was from a weird place, not from Adobe.</p>

<p>Email appearing to be "Adobe Invoice." Looking at the headers, it's certainly not from Adobe. Has a word document attachment, probably malicious.<br /><br />Be careful when you get this one or anything like it. As predicted, I think it's a PHISH based on data from the recent big Adobe security breach. <br> <br> <a href="https://forums.adobe.com/message/6425960#6425960" target="_blank">Posted also on Adobe forums</a>. There may be interesting replies there.</p> <p> <br> <img src="https://forums.adobe.com/servlet/JiveServlet/downloadImage/2-6425960-643858/450-407/Screen+Shot+2014-06-01+at+4.42.51+PM.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>Suitability of the Epson scanners for film and slides has been debated here a lot. I have the V500 and I have tested making prints from scans. I like a good sharp print, one you can pull right up close. I concluded I can make a print 6x the linear dimension of the film using the V500.</p> <p>That is, I'll make a 12x18" print from a 2x3" negative. It would be stretch, but only by a little, to make an 8x10 from a full frame 35mm negative.</p> <p>Here's a <a href="/film-and-processing-forum/00W7Rk">thread with several samples</a>, including a ready-to-print file from me.</p> <p>In my tests, the V500 resolves 1300 points per inch in one direction, 2000 in the other, <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00UZJA">as I reported here</a>. The V700 is somewhat better than your V500. The Nikon Coolscan V and 5000 products are much better, resolving 4000 points per inch.</p>

<p>I think the Nikon special repair program for the D600 is a pretty good customer service gesture. Bad that the problem existed in the first place, good now that Nikon is recognizing the problem and addressing it. I had mine serviced in the program.</p>