michael_dakin

I have a Nikon cable release and this is how it works:

If the disc at the base of the button is screwed in the button (and rod) will move freely with a spring-loaded action.

If the disc at the base of the button is not screwed in the button/rod will move "down" as far as you press it and then lock in

that position. To unlock the button/rod you press the disc downward.

It seems like you need to press that little disc downward and then the button will unlock and spring up. Once the button's up

you can then press down and screw in the disc to get the free moving action (if you want that).

I'm not sure all cable releases work the same way as mine. Good luck!

Nice; I love the 45P!

The lens gets knocked for being less sharp and slower than a 50mm while being much more expensive. The point of this lens is not

sharpness however-- it is blur. When you nail a shot with the lens the look of the out-of-focus areas and the interplay with the in-focus areas

can be amazingly beautiful. The in-focus areas (and corners on film/FX) might not technically be as sharp as a 50's but they are are sharp

enough for me! I love the lens!

I photographed the final assembly of a wedding cake with a 45P and D80 a few weeks ago. The set contains some nice examples of the

45P's bokeh.

<p>I am not an expert, I only very infrequently import items to the USA, and I've never

imported a lens from Hong Kong, but this is what I know.</p>

<p>First off the person sending the package needs to put a customs declaration onto it

(this is basic and is required and any business that does this regularly will do it

automatically but if you are dealing with an individual he/she might not be aware of it.

You can get that customs form at any post office in the world.) If it does not have a

declaration it will likely be rejected when it arrives to the USA and sent back.</p>

<p>It can be cheaper to use the "International Mail System" (USPS in the USA) rather than

courier services (FedEx, UPS, etc.) The savings result because items that come in via "mail"

that are valued less than $200 (or $100 if gift) are generally delivered with the duties

WAIVED. This waiver is not possible with courier delivery and you do pay duties on the

items worth less than $200. Also, I believe that the couriers must hire customs brokers to

get the packages through customs and they pass that cost on to you.</p>

<p>The courier's "shipping and handling" fee generally does NOT include the duty and

fees associated with the customs broker your courier hires for you. I have heard these

customs brokers fees can get exorbitant (sometimes effectively doubling the price of the

item being imported). Thus I have ONLY used the international mail system.</p>

<p>All items worth over $2000, some items worth over $250 and possibly all items in

some categories (textiles?) need to be "Formally Imported". This process requires that

YOU or a customs broker that you hire fill out paperwork to import the item before the

item can be delivered/picked up.</p>

<p>I believe the USPS charges $5 or so on top of the duty to deliver the item. (Or $0 if

the duty was waived by customs.) You (not your wife, kid, secretary, etc.) must sign for

the delivery and pay the fee and duty.</p>

<p>Take everything I have said with a grain of salt (this is a complex process in general,

and I'm not a customs broker or a frequent importer)! Review the US Customs

website:</p>

<ul>

<li>In general: <a href="http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/import/

infrequent_importer_info/">U.S. Customs Infrequent Importer Info</a></li>

<li>In particular: <a href="http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/import/

infrequent_importer_info/internet_purchases.xml">U.S. Customs Internet Purchases

Info</a></li>

</ul>

<i>The Nikon speedlights are $200-$400.</i>

<p>Nikon SB-600 and SB-400 speedlights with USA warranty can be had for $185 and

$130 respectively. </p>

<p>My D80 has been working well with the SB-600. I'd give some thought to the SB-600

because of two particular features that work with the D80, "Auto FP" synchronization, and

the ability for the D80 to control the SB-600 as an off-camera slave flash WIRELESSLY with

no additional parts/cost/etc. </p>

<p>The "Auto FP" synchronization of the D80/SB-600 allows you to use the flash at ANY

shutter speed-- you are not limited by the 1/200s normal sync speed limit if you use an

SB-600. I do not know whether the SB-400 has the "Auto FP" sync capability. </p>

<p>Using the SB-600 as an off-camera slave so far has worked VERY well. The D80

controls the off camera flash by sending out signals through its built-in flash. It can be

used in both TTL and manual modes in this configuration and you tweak the settings

through the D80's menu system. It works very well! At least in the small indoor spaces

I've been shooting. I am even considering adding a second SB-600 given how well it has

been working! The SB-400 does NOT have the off-camera slave capability.</p>

<p>If those features are not important to you then by all means proceed with the third-

party idea if you can save money!</p>

I don't know if the following observations generalize, I did not do a full scientific study of

this, and I don't have enough experience to be fully confident in my conclusions. That

said after some experimentation I concluded my manually focused D80 images had the

wrong focus point BECAUSE of improper diopter adjustment. Once I determined the

proper diopter adjustment experimentally my ability to focus the D80 manually improved

significantly. I have (as far as I know) perfect vision and I have many years of experience

manually focusing lenses with my film camera (FM2n) with good results. While the D80

does not have the FM2n's manual focusing potential it is really quite good. I suspect that

if I added a Katz Eye focusing screen with split-prism/microprisim to the D80 it would be

fine. For now I just have the stock focusing screen and have been doing a mix of manual

and auto focus to better characterize my ability to manually focus this camera under

pressure.

<p>

<i>there is no one in my area who rents a lens, otherwise I would go that route</i>

</p>

<p>

I recently learned it's possible to rent lenses through the U.S. mail. I know of two

such companies that do this:

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.ziplens.com/">ZipLens</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.rentglass.com/">Rentglass</a></li>

</ul>

</p>

<p>

I am neither affiliated with nor can I vouch for either company-- I've not used either one

yet! (So if you are interested perhaps talk to some people who have actually used them

before sending them money!)

</p>

I think the kids/candles shot is one of those exceptional shots that will mean a lot to those

kids and others in the family someday. (If not already!) Beautiful work.

<p>

<i>I would suggest that you not use any of your listed lenses because they are typically

too short a focal length for the nicest portrait work. Traditionally, a lens with a focal length

close to 100mm is your better option. That is because it allows for minimal distorion of

facial features that can be quite evident with lenses around 50mm. </i>

</p>

<p>

This advice is correct only if one is shooting 35mm film OR a full-frame DSLR. Since Pera

is using a D70 with 1.5x crop factor the 50mm lens will not impart as much "perspective

distortion" to facial features as 35mm film shooters might expect.

</p>

<p>

I too was confused about this point until recently. My confusion was cleared up by asking

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ImTn">

this question</a> here on photo.net.

</p>

<p>

The short answer as to why 50mm will make a decent portrait lens on a 1.5x crop factor

DSLR is that perspective distortion is a function ONLY of how far the subject is away from

the lens. When you fill the frame with a face and a 50mm lens on a 1.5x crop factor

DSLR you are much further away from the subject than when you fill the frame with the

same face/same lens mounted on a 35mm film SLR. The difference in distance makes a

huge difference in the look of the facial distortion.

</p>

<p>

Just take some test shots of faces and compare them if you have trouble believing this.

</p>

When I move my D80 I can hear a noise. I would not describe it as being like a pebble

moving around though. It sounds more like a ticking or clicking a bit like a rattlesnake

except not as harsh and much quieter. It rapidly decreases in "volume" after each

movement only lasting 1.5 seconds or so. I can only hear it when my ear is within a few

inches of the camera, and most often hear it when I am shooting in a quiet place and

switch from "landscape" to "portrait" orientation.

I do not know what it is but I too assumed it was an orientation or movement sensor. I

was thinking it could be part of the VR system but some reading since then indicated the

VR sensors are located in the VR lenses not the camera bodies. I have not noticed any

strange problems with the camera so I'm not going to worry about it.

Also in my case it really does not sound like a problem. The sound is too "organized" not

random.

<p>

Thanks for the informative replies and reference! "Perspective distortion" is exactly the

factor I was concerned about. I'm sure the point about the 50mm being engineered more

perfectly than the 35mm lens is true but I suspect those differences esp. in the center of

the frame, would not really be problematic for most faces.

</p>

<p>

Armed with the correct terminology (thanks to the replies) I found another nice reference

concerning this subject, "<a href="http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/crop.html">Effects

of cropping</a>" by Gisle Hannemyr. A couple of enlightening example photos are

included.

</p>

<p>

I've still not been able to find any side-by-side example photos involving faces. But I'm

not worried given that all the theory seems to be consistent. And my own photos taken

with the 50mm lens/1.5xDSLR of faces looked strangely good (which is what got me

thinking about this subject in the first place). Seeing evidence is always most comforting.

</p>

<p>

Thanks to everyone!

</p>

I understand why field-of-view-wise a 35mm lens on 1.5x-crop-factor DSLR is roughly equivalent to a

50mm lens on a 35mm SLR (or full-frame DSLR). People often say a the 35mm lens on the 1.5xDSLR is

"equivalent" to the 50mm lens on the full frame. This logic leads to lens recommendations based solely

on achieving an equivalent field of view between the 1.5xDSLR and the full-frame.

It seems to me that there might be more to this however than field of view. In most cases the look is

what is important not how far one stands from the subject to get the picture.

I'm curious about how the 50mm lens on the SLR distorts facial features relative to the way the 35mm

lens on the DSLR distorts facial features when the same picture is composed of the same face with both

cameras/lenses.

For example say I use the SLR/50mm to fill the frame with a given person's face. At such a close

distance the 50mm will tend to distort the face of the person in subtle ways, maybe flatteringly,

probably not. But in some characteristic way for that focal length and face. By distortion I mean

distortions to the form of the face, not color, contrast, bokeh, etc. (though there will be likely variations

with those factors as well).

Now if I take the same face and fill the frame of a DSLR with the 35mm lens how will the face look

relative to the first picture?

Unfortunately I don't have the right combination of lenses to perform the tests that would answer my

question.

But I do suspect the two "looks" will be different. Which is better or whether the difference matters is

probably a function of the face in the photo and the taste of the viewer.

If there are differences in the looks then while the fields of view might be the same the picture-taking-

potential is different.

Has anyone done this test?

<p>Nine days after purchasing my D80 body from an authorized Nikon dealer I learned

two important facts by corresponding with Nikon USA:</p>

<ul>

<li>

The D80 Extended Service Contract (ESC) sold by Nikon USA must be "registered" within 10

days of the purchase of the camera body. </li>

<li>

The ESC and the body must be purchased from the SAME authorized Nikon dealer.

</li>

</ul>

<p>

Nikon USA got back to me about the ESC nine days after I purchased the body. This led to

some phone calls and rushing around but my Nikon dealer dropped the ball badly and I

walked away without the ESC. Nikon USA waived the 10-day-rule for me given

the problems I had with their dealer and for that I commend them. But now I'm still not

sure if I even want the ESC. The interactions with my dealer on "day nine" left a bad taste

in my mouth about the situation in general and that dealer in particular. </p>

<p>The camera has been excellent so far and Nikon USA compensated for dealer

problems but the 10-day rule is silly IMO.

</p>

Hi, I have a CanoScan 8000F; it looks like the 8400F is the new version of the 8000F. I

can't offer a direct comparison because I've never used the 8400F, but I can tell you about

my experiences scanning slides with the 8000F.

I'm now at the point that I can ger a decent web-resolution image from the scanner in

many cases with perhaps 5 to 10 minutes of so of tweaking levels and hue/saturation in

Photoshop post scan to make the colors look like the slide on my light box. Getting a nice

print resolution image is still more of a challenge for me because the 8000F is only 2400

dpi and at full resolution some of the scanner's limitations are much more visible.

Getting to the point I'm at has been a struggle but also a great learning experience. I

know for sure a lot of the concepts I've learned will directly help me in the future when I

eventually get my hands on a nice dedicated film scanner.

The first thing I needed to do was replace the Canon-supplied software that came with the

scanner. The Canon software (at least the Mac version) is a complete embarrassment. It is

the only program that has ever actually crashed my Mac. The UI is frustrating and the

quality of the scans that it produces does not come close to the capabilities of the

hardware. I replaced the Canon software with VueScan Pro, which I will be able to use with

other scanners in the future with no additional charge.

The second thing that I needed to do was learn how to calibrate the color of the scanner.

The colors that the scanner produced by default with the Canon software looked nothing

like the slide on my light box. They are embarrassingly far off. The default Vuescan

colors looked closer in many cases, but are still far off. I invested in a set of IT8 color

calibration targets and used VueScan to profile the scanner. After profiling the colors are

usually not quite perfect, but they are close enough that I can get them to look right with a

couple of minutes of tweaking rather than 30 minutes or more it used to take.

The final thing that I needed to do was actually read a good amount of the VueScan

manual to learn how to use the program correctly. VueScan is set up so that by default it

does a pretty good job in many cases, but I've found the defaults did a very bad job with

some of my slides. I think the VueScan defaults are optimized for scanning negatives

rather than slides and some of the defaults do not make sense in the context of slide

scanning. To get those slides to scan well I needed to understand what VueScan was

trying to do for me, and then figure out how to override it.

As the to hardware limitations I allude to above: I've found the 8000F to produce pretty

noisy scans. That is resolved by having VueScan do a multi-pass scan. It scans the

images a specified number of times and then averages them together; this averages out

the random noise. Also, I think there is some limitation with the hardware that comes out

when you're scanning high-contrast images. It seem that if you have a light area next to a

dark area the dark area can come out lighter than it actually is. At web resolutions this

does not seem to matter because the effect happens on such a small scale that when you

resize the image down there is just not enough resolution to see the effect and it averages

out. It has proven to be a problem for me at print resolution though.

All the learning experiences described above will directly translate to other scanners in the

future. That I think is the beauty of these $150 scanners. They have very real technical

limitations but they let you learn today.

I have a 1.33 GHz 12" Powerbook with 768 MB RAM that I use for some minor PS work

(rotate/crop/levels/huesat/unsharp mask) for similarly sized files. It is usable but slow.

Though I'm not in a rush when I do these things. If this was more than a hobby I probably

would not find it acceptable, but that's just me.

I'd recommend understanding whether the built-in monitor will work for you color-wise.

The 12" Powerbook's monitor is really not acceptable to me color-wise when I'm trying to

make the scan look like the slide on the light box. Compared to a CRT the colors look dull

and muddy. This is not apparent under normal usage but it is significant when viewed

side-by-side. I have a old but nice CRT that I plug in and use when I need to do that type

of work. The difference between the LCD and the CRT side-by-side is amazing. I think

the 15" has a different type of display that might be better in this respect but I don't know.

I'd try to demo it plugged into a decent CRT, dragging a window across both monitors to

see if the color difference is acceptable, or just plan on using a CRT for the color work.

I suspect that once Nikon really figures out how to build DSLRs with a low development

cost, IF they estimate sufficient demand for something like an FM3d they will produce it. I

suspect there might be sufficient demand depending on timing. Why? Nikon has made a

lot of money selling camera to minimalist minded photographers over the past 20 years or

so in the form of the FM2, FM2n, FM3a and to a lesser extent FM10 (perhaps most FM10

purchases are driven more by price, than wanting an minimalist experience?) It is natural

that the minimalists who bought into those cameras instead of buying the more typical

auto/AF bodies will be interested in a different sort of camera than the auto/AF-body-

derived DSLRs that exist today. Nikon understands this group of minimalists and I'm sure

it tries to keep track of what they are buying and what they really want.

<<It is Sony who is supplying all the sensors anyway. Nikon's part is already marginal in

building any DSLR.>>

This statement is pretty questionable to me (I worked in the consumer electronics industry

for several years both with commodity suppliers of semiconductor devices and with value-

adding system integrators.) Sensors are commodities-- the margins on sensors are low

because there are many companies producing them and buyers theoretically can switch to

a new producer for the next generation of products. The margins on things produced by

value-added system integrators can vary widely from small (like commodities) (think APEX

DVD players) to huge (think Bose systems which include DVD). I suspect that right now for

the D70 and D2X Nikon's margins are pretty large. I suspect the margins on the sensors

%wise and $wise in the D70 and D2X are much, much smaller. Nikon's margins on those

products are so big precisely because Nikon's system integration, firmware/software

design, industrial design, mechanical design, etc. are the critical factors when it when it

comes to designing/marketing/selling cameras. Swap in some other sensor, redo a board,

rewrite some firmware and you still have a Nikon camera. The fact that there is a Sony

sensor in there now means very, very little, far from implying that Nikon's role in

producing a Nikon DSLR is "marginal."

<<I will push Trix to 800 after the NPZ roll is done. >>

I happened to have looked at the Tri-X info on the Kodak website the other day and saw

the following statement:

"Because of these films' exposure latitude, you can underexpose by one stop and use

normal processing times. Prints will show a slight loss in shadow detail."

As a consequence of this advice the data sheet only contains instructions for pushing it

two and three stops (no info for pushing it one stop).

It would be interesting to compare their advice of shooting it at 800 and processing

normally to shooting it at 800 and pushing it especially looking at the shadows.

I suspect their advice would yeild what they consider to be better results, but both cases

could be interesting to look at.

Full info:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.jhtml?

id=0.1.18.14.23.16.14&lc=en#pushproc

I have a CanoScan 8000F. I use it on the MacOS X platform. I use it mainly for general

purpose "office" use but I have also tried to scan slides as well as B&W negatives with it.

By no means have I put the time/care into the film scanning that some people would, so

my results do not necessarily compare to a perfectionist willing to spend a lot of time

actually making it work correctly. I don't know how much this applies to the 4000F but

here are some observations:

1. The MacOS X software for the 8000F scanner is very poor. The GUI is flakey and if the

scanner is left connected and software is active sometimes the machine will crash when it

goes into sleep mode. I never have any crashes when the scanner is not connected.

2. Canon does not release all the technical specs. for the 8000F so the third party

scanner software support is spotty. Only in the last two weeks or so has Vuescan added

support for the 8000F scanner. As far as I know none of the other third party vendors

support it. Notable for Mac users: Apple's scanner software does not support the 8000F.

3. I have tried to scan Fuji Velvia and Fuji Astia slides with the 8000F scanner and the

results were very disappointing. The colors are *way* off. I don't know if a Photoshop

guru could fix them or not, but it is not something that I was able to do to satisfaction

putting a few hours in. I am by no means a Photoshop expert though. The results I got

were not acceptable to me.

4. I have tried to scan some B&W negatives. With minimal effort I got acceptable results. I

don't know how it compares to getting the scans done professionally though; at some

point I will do a direct comparison.

Personally, I think the software support for the 8000F scanner is a major problem. In the

future I will be much more careful about buying something that is supported by several

third party software vendors to mitigate the risk of the manufacturer provided software

being so poor. I suspect that this problem about third party support extends to all the

recent Canon scanners.

As for the "office" uses it has been a fine scanner though and that's the primary reason I

bought it.

<<rather than spending most, if not all time where it matters - light and composition: the

most valuable, and the most difficult fields to master.>>

No one here is advocating forgetting about composition and light. The whole point of the

Zone System is to *intuitively* understand how light interacts with the films and papers.

Ansel's concept of visualization is all about both light and composition.

<<since they care and enjoy only or mostly about the technical processes of photography,

not the art. Sure they know a lot about cameras, lenses anf film>>

All photographers need to understand the technical aspects of photography to a greater or

lesser extent. "Focus" is a technical concept. Understanding how apature effects depth of

feild is a technical concept. Understanding how to get exposure correct is a technical

concept.

Some people stop learning the technical concepts at focus and apature. Others want to

delve into things a bit more and take it further (as did Ansel Adams).

What is right? ALL of the approaches are valid. We're having fun. People should take

things as far as they find it enjoyable.

I absolutely do not believe in any way that technical prowess is necessary to get

meaningful images. At the same time I do not believe that technical prowess is a

hindrance.

It is silly if you're indeed insinuating that interest in the Zone System, the technical aspects

of the hobby or other "manual" appproaches implies one is not interested in art and the

finished product.

<<How many great moments have you not captured because you opted to use a manual

focus camera instead?>>

Honestly autofocus and autoexposure are not particularly useful for the things I like to

photograph (landscapes, long exposures to induce motion blur, natural textures, people in

a portrait situation, etc.)

If I was a photojournalist or sports photographer or wanted to get nice shots of little kids

running around would I work with AF? Absolutely! It is a tool that I would use if I felt I

needed to.

In conclusion I'll say that I think we're really appcoaching photography from different

directions. In *no way* do I think you're doing something wrong. At the same time I think

my approach is totally valid too. Variety is just fine and there is no need to force one's

methods on other people. There is no "best" approach here that will work for everyone

aside from practice and honestly thinking about one's work.

Have fun!

<<It probably has a better understanding of the zone system than you do. Save the time,

and learn the rare cases when the matrix system doesn't work... Spend more time on

composition instead of dicking around with the equipment.>>

I can't speak for Doug but I think you're misunderstanding why some photo hobbyists

decide to pursue the Zone System and other more "manual" ways of approaching

photography.

Composition is critically important, but it is not the only variable. I enjoy thinking about

composition as well as the other variables such as exposure, etc. My enjoyment of the

hobby would be decreased if I started letting a machine make those decisions for me. I

am not a professional interested in production simply a hobbyist interested in craftwork

and enjoyment.

Your advice may indeed be good for many people, but it simply does not apply universally

especially when hobbyists are taken into account rather than professionals.

I do not know where Doug falls but it would not surprise me if he like myself is interested

in approaching photography in a deliberate manner-- personally considering all the major

factors rather than delegating the task to a machine.

<<There is only one correct exposure no matter how you meter.>>

This notion does not seem to be consistent with Ansel Adams writings about photography

and the Zone System. I am new to the Zone System though and have only made it through

the first 180 pages of "The Negative."

My reading indicates that the point of the Zone System is to allow one to record the scene

in such a way that one is able to reproduce his artistic "visualization" of the scene in the

form of a print. The "visualization" may or may not involve a departing from a "literal"

interpretation of the scene.

With respect to departing from the literal interpretation Ansel writes, "I would like to

emphasize again, however, that one of the great advantages of the Zone System is that it

does not require a literal rendering, and we are entirely free to depart from the

descriptions in the chart as our visualization demands." (p. 59 of "The Negative")

The notion that one's visualization may depart from a literal rendering and the possibility

that there may be distinct "visualizations" of the same scene imply that there is no single

correct exposure/processing/printing for a given scene. There are a number of correct

exposures/processing techniques/printing techniques that each can be used to realize a

different visualization.

Ansel speaks to this particular point in Figure 4-15 on p. 73 of "The Negative." This figure

is a picture of some leaves and pine needles. The leaves are very bright and contrasty

compared to how a literal visualization would have rendered them. He set the shadows

down in Zones I and II and then used N+2 development and printed down the shadows.

Ansel says, "A normal "realistic" interpretation of this subject would have been quite drab."

Ansel chose a non-literal visualization that realized a beautiful artistic print. A scientist

doing documentary work would have a desire to render the scene literally however.

Which is correct? BOTH, given that there are at least two different visualizations (Ansel's

artistic visualization and the scientist's documentary visualization) possible for this scene.

In the context of the Zone System there is not necessarily one correct exposure for any

given scene. It all depends on what the artist's final visualization of the scene actually is.

A while ago when googling around about this topic I stumbled across this website:

http://webs.lanset.com/rcochran/battle105/

The site compares a classic Nikkor 105 f/2.5 AIS lens known for its bokeh to a 105mm

f2.8 AIS micro lens known for its sharpness. In case you're not aware Nikon labels its

macro lenses "micro". There are some pictures at the bottom of the page comparing the

bokeh of the two lenses.

Incidentally, it seems that this report was prepared by a photo.net member according to

this discussion:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0061kR

How Nikkor bokeh compares to the Leica bokeh I do not know.

If you'd like a printed one you can buy it right from Nikon. Looks like they want $10.

Go to:

http://www.nikonmall.com/

Near the top click "Instruction Manuals". Then on the left click "Speedlight >". Scroll down

a bit and you should see it.