luca_stramare2

<p>Among SRLs, Nikon F with plain prism, of course, black Leica M4 among rangefinders and Nikon 28Ti among P&S. But when I go somewhere and I bring with me the olympus O-Product to take some candids, everybody smiles at that camera.</p>

<p>Moreover, if Canon, Nikon, Leica or whoever makes some fine (and expensive) glass targeted at professionals, it does not necessairly mean that their consumer stuff is better than other consumer stuff made by companies that are oriented to the consumer market only.</p>

<p>If you asked the same question in the '70s and early 80s, you'd got a completely different answer. Beginning from 1982 (World soccer cup in Spain), Canon started an effort to target sport and action professional phptographers. When AF was developed, Canon decision to put AF motors inside the lenses turned out to be a winning one, because it allowed to target the AF system to the individual lens. Also, specific services (1 hour development, lens rental, ...) were provided for photographers at sponsored events. The switch from a system to another is not a decision that a professional photographer takes lightly, it is not just a matter of buying a couple of bodies and two lenses. But thanks to this, Canon was able to convert many professionals to their system, while Nikon kept a position in the fashion and photojournalism, because of its at that time superior, flash capability. Another winning move of Canon was the introduction of full frame digital, which converted many wedding photographers and wide angle shooters. Nowadays maybe the two systems are more or less the same in terms of performance and, being no real advantage to jump from one wagon to the other, professionals keep shooting with the system they have the equipment of, as long as it meets their needs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>AGFA-Gevaert makes some excellent military films. If it is good enought for the Luftwaffe, I am sure that it is good enough for me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Still available as Rollei B&W and colour (Digibase) negative and slide.</p>

<p>Film is like ice creams, it comes in many different flavours, it's up to you to decide which one is the best for your taste.</p>

<p>Better, no. But in many cases I found very similar results at lower price, or real bargains in the used market, because of the lower resale value. Not to mention situation like the Nikon 70-300 AF 4-5.6 ED and the Tamron 70-300 AF 4-5.6 LD in which the lens is exactly the same but the Tamron was half the price new and a third used.</p>

<p>I have been there las summer. I booked a three hour taxi tour from the airport. I explained my interest in photography, the driver brought me to the main point of interest and gave me instructions and tricks. I filled some pages of notes. Then I came back to some of the same places at the right time to take my pictures.</p>

<p>OK, now let's be honest - what did we do with all the Nikon dogs? Sell them to unsuspecting fellow photographers or trade them in to be sold to other unsuspecting photographers.<br>

Ok, here is my list. No bucket passed on e-bay.</p>

<ul>

<li>35-80 4-5.6 - It came with the camera, with or without the lens, the price was the same. Actually never used, only tested on the camera without shooting. I don't know about performance, it wuas the handling that I did not like. Returned to the shop after few days from purchase and got a 50 mm 1.8 with some discount. Guess the lens was sold as new with the next camera.</li>

<li>300 mm 2.8 - Traded to a camera broker for a bunch of Euros. The lens was perfect, just too big and too heavy for my needs. </li>

<li>35-70 mm 2.8 - Problem fixed, I still own and use it.</li>

<li>28-50 mm 3.3 - 4.5 - Lens was good, distortion was too much for my urban landscape shots. Given to a friend who does PJ in exchange for a 28-105 mm 3.5-4.5 lens that was not enough wide for him. I still have and use it. Guess it was a win-win solution.</li>

<li>70-300 mm 4-5.6 ED - Time for the third re-alignment. Then another couple of years of good performance will follow. I will keep it as backup if I find a really mint 75-300 mm 4.5-5.6. </li>

</ul>

<p>Rotten because it was one of the first attempts to make a "consumer" zoom, in those days in which primes were the results of decades of development.</p>

<p>In my case, the only one I believe has some design flaws is the 70-300 ED, which tends to misalign, but maybe because I do a lot of air travel (vibrations). The 300 2.8 was perfect but it was not my lens (too big and too heavy), the plastic 35-80 maybe was a bargain for the price but lacked the feeling with the small focusing ring. All the others were perfect lenses that maybe got some abuse during transportation or were not properly checked before shipment. Once fixed, they gave me years of fantastic performance and some I still use today.</p>

<p>A good used DSRL with the equivalent in digital terms of a 28-85mm zoom will do the job. Add your compact camera for snapshots and you are done.</p>

<p>Quick answer: it depends...<br>

It reminds me of the old discussion about 50 mm lenses, and the people stating that they were "boring" and that to make a fantastic picture you need a supertele or ultrawide lens.<br>

I would say that the situations in which a camera (and equipment in general) is really important in getting a good photography are only a minority. In the vast majority of situations the difference between a "good" and a "bad" picture is not related to the equipment but to the photographer having or lacking vision and/or technical skills and/or willingnes to pay the price to shoot a good picture and post-process it if required.</p>

<p>Leica is going to become the luxury photo brand of Panasonic group.</p>

<p>I agree, considering the obsolescence rate of digital stuff, buying a 2nd body as a backup could mean scrapping it without using. If I'd shoot digital, I'd just keep my yesteryear camera as a backup rather than investing in a new 2nd body. Like in the film days, when people was using a Nikon FM as backup of a Nikon F3/F4/F5 professional body.</p>

<p>I don't carry a second body, unless I don't really need the pictures (and I cannot afford the failure of the main one) or I need slide and B&W shots. Usually when I go on vacation I simply bring a P&S camera, which I use for candids but could be a backup, just in case...</p>

<p>Jenna, my advice is if you are going to buy the 10-22, do it now. So you can have time to test it and get used to. It is not only a matter of checking its correct performance, but to develop your vision, i.e. learn what a wide angle lens can do for you and learn to recognize potential picture situation. Hence you will be prepared. Otherwise the risk is that this lens, which in my humble opinion is a great asset for shooting in crowded cities, will stay in your bag because your mind sees no use for it or will give you disappointing results because you don't know how to make the best out of it. I agree with those stating that you can visit a place and take fantastic pictures with whatever lens you are accustomed to, for ten years my only lens had been a 50 mm, but I also believe that if I had a 28 mm and a 135 mm at that time, I would had learnt to recognize potential pictures and used them as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think sample variation is huge on the cheaper zooms. I have the Nikon 70-300mm ED zoom (with an aperture ring and a metal mount, not the plastic G version), ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, I have one and I have discovered that this lens (which is a Tamron design, identical down to the last screw to the Tamron 70-300 LD zoom) has a tendency to misalign, resulting in softness or chromatic aberration on one side. I had to send mine to be aligned twice and in both cases the fix did not last long. I wish I'd kept my trusty 75-300.</p>

<p>The polarizer is a tool, as per any tool, use it when you need it. There are situation in which a polarizer helps a lot, for example when shooting trough a window or water, there are situation in which it is nice to have to reduce distance fog or enhance the color of water, and there are situation in which it is useless if not reducing the quality of your pictures. I have standardized all my lenses to 52 mm and 62 mm filter thread, hence for me having two polarizers (one each thread) and use them when needed is enough.</p>

<p>Good question, Mary, I have a 50 mm 1.8 series E that is far outperformed by my 50 mm 1.4 AI, but I use it a lot when shooting in dusty/wet/salty/you name them places. I paid 20 Euros for it and I don't even think of getting rid of. I don't even bought an UV filter, a "new used" 50 mm 1.8 series E will cost me less than a good UV filter.</p>

<p>Yes, because if it is a malfunction in the advancing system, it will always do, no matter if you turn it on and off in between. I'd check the contacts between the door and the back (the F100 does not advance film if the back door is open) and try to move the advance dial, maybe the dirt is in there. Otherwise the cure is send it to a repair shop, hoping that Murphy law will not apply (once there, it works flawlessly, like it happened to my F70).</p>

<p>Nikon FM2, 28 mm f/2.8, 35 mm f/2, 50 mm f/1.4 and 135 mm f/2.8, polarizer, 81A, slide film and SB22 flash.</p>

<p>Thanks also from my side!</p>

<p>Thank you Phil. What other locations do you suggest in the UK that are somehow "manageable" with public transport?</p>

<p>I did the same mistake with my F100, check the multiple exposure dial. ;-)</p>

<p>David, I happened to drive in UK, Australia and Japan, to mention places where people drive on the wrong side. I know I can manage, but I am afraid of what can happen because of an action taken on habit. A former colleague of mine some years ago, was going back to the hotel after one day at a customer site. Maybe he was tired, maybe he was lost in his thoughts and he turned left doing what he did a milion time, i.e. keeping the right side of the road. A motorbiker was coming and did not survive the impact with the car. I am afraid that a momentary lapse of thinking and automatic switching to old habits might be an issue.</p>