therion256

<p>I wanted to chime in on the discussion as shown below:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Stephen, thanks.<br />Are you certain it's not focal length that's the basis of the rule? For example, at 70mm, you want a minimum shutter speed of 1 / 70 sec. This makes sense to me because longer focal lengths amplify the effects of vibration. I'm not sure why ISO would be the factor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I would add to that is: Focal length plays a role in the magnification of a subject...the greater that magnification, the greater likelihood that vibration/movement of the camera is perceptible in a photo. You would want a minimum shutter speed close to 1/70 (nearest available speed would be 1/80) given a focal length of 70mm. In addition, you want to choose an ISO which permits a shutter speed which at least as fast as 1/80 and permits you to use the aperture you desire.<br>

<br />The sunny 16 rule says "<strong>On a sunny day set </strong><a title="Aperture" href="../wiki/Aperture"><strong>aperture</strong></a><strong> to </strong><a title="F-number" href="../wiki/F-number"><strong>f/16</strong></a><strong> and </strong><a title="Shutter speed" href="../wiki/Shutter_speed"><strong>shutter speed</strong></a><strong> to the ISO </strong><a title="Film speed" href="../wiki/Film_speed"><strong>film speed</strong></a>"<br>

<br />So the desired aperture for the sunny rule is f/16...<br />However, depending on your artistic intention, you may want a different aperture...so in that case the ISO may need to change to support the minimum shutter speed (1/80 in your example) you need to shoot at.<br />In short: shutter speed, ISO and aperture form the "exposure triangle." All three variables are required to determine an exposure. The sunny 16 rule is a starting point, meant to be used if you lack a meter (or just don't want to use it.)<br />On a personal note, I use M mode (with spot) for most of my shooting and do consider Ansel Adams' Zone System when thinking about my exposure...and I have fun doing it like that.</p>

The optical formula is virtually identical between the two lenses. I own both the 1.4 AF non-D and a Nikkor-S for the Nikon F...and other than the coatings, it's virtually identical optically, the same minimum f/16 aperture and 1.5 ft. minimum focus distance.

 

The D means that there is a chip which relays subject distance to help in calculating flash power...there are very few scenarios where you truly NEED this. Both are 100% compatible with the D50 and D200.

 

You'll save a few bucks (~$40-50) in choosing the non-D version.

What lens are you using? I've seen this on the 50 f/1.4 lens I have, which points to lens flare.

I think of Consumer Reports as the thing for non-Internet savy older people who want to buy a washing machine or a car...not so much for higher tech stuff like cameras and computers.

Coming from the D70, I recall how small that viewfinder really was...the D200 is nicer. I might suggest one of the magnifying eyepieces found at a link someone from photo.net gave me a few days ago which may help in manual focusing:

 

http://www.bocaphoto.com/products/new/nikon/nikonacc.htm

 

Good luck,

KK

...oh and by the way, in case you don't already know, you get a great bang for your buck with the AI/AIs lenses...the build quality is extremely good, and image quality is generally excellent.

In terms of funtionality, AI and AIS will work identically on your D70. That is, you get no metering and will need to use manual mode and your histogram (or a handheld meter) to see that you have the exposure you need. None of the AI/AIs meter with the D70/D80/D50/D40(x), since these consumer-level cameras don't have the aperture indexing tab at the outer circumference of the lens mount. The D200 has it and will meter with these lenses.

 

Bjorn Rorslett, a prominent photographer around these parts (on photo.net) indicates that if you can, seek out the AI instead of the AIs versions of the lenses you want. He has great lens rating charts over at http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

 

The link at http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/nomenclature.htm makes an effort to define AI and AIs and point out the differences if you are further interested.

 

KK

For wide angle lenses, the front element somehow seems to catch the rays of the sun and cause flare, whether you intend to or not.

 

I found it more convenient to use collapsible rubber hoods which remains on my wider-angle lenses (and the 50 1.4, due to its larger front element) all the time. Also, they are cheaper than the Nikon-branded solid plastic lens shades. I bought mine at Calumet, for $8-10 each (depending on front filter size.)

 

They're probably not so necessary on lenses whose front element is recessed, like the 50 1.8.

There was a similar forum entry a few days ago and I found this link for a place to buy a variety of eyepieces/eyecups for many Nikon camera models.

 

http://www.bocaphoto.com/products/new/nikon/nikonacc.htm

 

I'm also wondering about user experiences with Boca Photo and these eyecups on their D200 cameras, as I'm contemplating getting one of them.

You'll probably need to clarify what it is you're asking for...there are numerous interpretations as you've seen in the previous responses.

 

You can set the number of times the shutter is to fire in interval photography, on pages 89-92 of the D200 manual.

 

If you're asking about the count of times that the camera's shutter has been fired in its lifetime, that count is not directly accessible and cannot be set. It can however be viewed in the EXIF data for each photo you take...you get the latest photo that you took, and use an EXIF reading program. Look for "Number of shutter actuations" or "Total Pictures" or something like that.

Primes are not considered as "cool" to shoot with by most of the general public...it is more hip to have a zoom lens, even if the quality is an inferior "dark-ish" f/4-5.6 variable aperture...but typically, only the fixed aperture f/2.8 or faster (with exception to the Nikkor 12-24 f/4) get the gold ring. Sadly, no primes in Nikon's lineup get the gold ring.

 

As someone else alluded to earlier, perhaps the gold ring signifies the kinds of money you'll spend to have one of these gold-ringed lenses.

 

Personally, I consider most all primes with f/2.8 or faster as professional gear.

After subsequent examination of my statement:

 

"That being said, provided you didn't blow out highlights, it's better to lower exposure in PP (post-processing) than it is to raise exposure on an underexposed scene...the latter introduces noise artifacts (especially on the blue channel) if you go up more than a stop or so. "

 

I think it should be amended to say:

 

"That being said, provided you didn't blow out highlights, it's better to lower exposure on an overexposed image in PP (post-processing) than it is to raise exposure on an underexposed scene...the latter introduces noise artifacts (especially on the blue channel) if you go up more than a stop or so. "

 

Glad my statement helped you out anyhow.

 

KK

It is far better to get the exposure "in the field" via correct exposure on your camera than it is to raise/lower it in Photoshop/post-processing afterwards.

 

That being said, provided you didn't blow out highlights, it's better to lower exposure in PP (post-processing) than it is to raise exposure on an underexposed scene...the latter introduces noise artifacts (especially on the blue channel) if you go up more than a stop or so.

 

Also, if you shoot JPEG, then resave the image for adjusted exposure, you degrade image quality due to the lossy nature of the JPEG algorithm. This is less of a problem if you shoot RAW.

 

 

In short, it's best to get exposure right when shooting...but of course it's not always possible.

Best of luck Gokce...one key of stock images which can help you get sales is to get images which no one else has. There appears to be a great opportunity for you there.

 

After reviewing the Getty site, there is a bit of an elaborate process...you'll need to send some samples, and if they like your stuff enough to invite you to submit, it's $50 per image and a limit on the number of images (40 per year) one may submit.

 

See http://login.vnuemedia.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003409178 for more overview on this.

 

Personally, I've been doing microstock on Shutterstock and BigStockPhoto, and will probably submit to more, such as iStockPhoto. Life, full-time day job, etc. seem to limit my energy towards my activities in this regard.

 

Some photographers are against royalty-free microstock, but one of the biggest arguments for doing it, in my view, is to let the better of my existing images "work for me" instead of just letting them sit on a hard drive...and it gives me goals and standards to aim for. I still have much to learn about stock photography. The microstocks have a relatively low barrier of entry as compared to Corbis and Getty...by the way, iStockPhoto (microstock site) was recently acquired by Getty.

 

So microstock may also be a thing for you to try, and you can use your D80 to submit to those. I got started on those with my D70 a few years back.

 

Some people have made over $1000 a month on microstock sites alone...another tempting possibility.

Gokce:

 

Looks like someone beat me to it...

 

KK

Like some others, I started with the 50 1.8...it was quite a good lens, but gets soft below f/2.8.

 

I got an eBay offer I couldn't refuse on a Made in Japan like-new 50 1/4 (non-D)...I was skeptical about it at first, until I received the lens. I figured out where the money went...better contrast, color rendition, and sharp down to 1.4 (as long as you're careful with that really skinny depth of field.) However, I'm not sure that there is 2.5-3X improvement in quality and performance versus the 1.8.

 

I never really cared for the build quality of the 50 1.8...the 50 1.4 is an improvement in that respect.

 

Bokeh is better as well. I did end up selling the 1.8 and recovering 95% of the cost. It is worth having the 1.4...but you may want a filter on the front, as the front element is considerably larger and more exposed than the 1.8. As with most fast lenses, this one can flare in certain situations.

To Al:

 

I visited the contributors' site of Getty, and the Nikon D200 is on the list of approved cameras...so no need to divest from Nikon to a camera made by "that copier company."

 

It's best to shoot RAW and convert to TIFF (and perform whatever Photoshop post-processing trickery) to reach the 50mb requirement.

The D200 is even more hefty and rugged...

 

The only thing I wish they could have put on the D200 which was on the D100 is the threaded cable release slot on the shutter button.

I'm very happy with my Nikkor 20 f/2.8 on my D200. I find that there is less CA than what I've seen on my 24 f/2.8.

 

It seems possible that there is some sample variation on these lenses. Bjorn (Rorslett) and I (and a few here) get good samples, the people at Photozone.de (and a few here) get a bad one. I've also heard bad things about the 24 and 28's in various places, but not all.

The "prosumer" and consumer level cameras are expected to sell much better than any of their pro offerings. They are Nikon's "bread-and-butter" to help fund the efforts towards the higher-end products such as D200's and D2x/D2h successors. If you really want the D200 you should get it...it will remain quite a compentent camera for years to come...look at the number of people out there in the forums who still say that they use a D100. The D80 would probably be a great second choice if you don't require 5fps capture or metering with older AI/AI-s lenses. Forget the D40 for you...it would be a downgrade.

 

It will probably be a number of years (3-5) before a D200 successor comes along, if we are to follow the timespan from the D100 (intro 2002) to D200 (intro 2005).

 

All that said, the D70 is a great camera which remains competent (I should probably say "great"), though it's not quite that high in the megapixel count these days.

 

Like others have said, it's highly unlikely that most dSLR's can reach classic status...since so many of the components are disposable versus the cost to repair the camera. You can just buy the latest model when yours breaks down.

I tried out the Sony A100, and I own the Nikon D200...I thought that the Sony felt too "plasticy" for my liking. The Nikon D70s even feels better in my hands than the Sony offering. Of course I'm a biased Nikon fan...a beginner may feel that the Sony would be more to their liking.

I've handled and used an Olympus E1 in the past, and I have to say, that camera is extremely well-built.

 

Coming from the E1, you'll probably want to go to the Nikon D200 for the build quality and features, rather than the D80. The D200 is an upgrade from the E1, whereas going to the D80 is a bit of a downgrade in terms of the build-quality, but is more like a lateral move in terms of the feature set.

 

Besides, with the D200, you'll be able to carry all your compact-flash cards along.

Hi Bernard:

You said nothing of what you do with the 50 f/1.4 lens...I hope it's not sitting on a shelf also...

I upgraded from the AF50 f/1.8D (made in China) to the AF50 f/1.4 (non-D, made in Japan) and so far I'm quite pleased with the change. It's definitely not "twice the performance." From what I see in my shots so far, the images are at least on par with the 1.8 version...and of course you get the extra 2/3 stop for more available-light photos.

 

I didn't like the build quality of the 1.8 at all...I felt like I could crush it in my hand without much effort. However that "crushable" 1.8 lens put out some very fantastic images on the D200. It's great as a starter lens or even for some professional uses. Definitely an awesome "bang-for-the-buck" factor.

 

If build quality really matters, there are always the AI(s) versions of the lenses if you're willing to manually focus and have good enough eyes for that sort of thing. The 1.4 is of good build quality, though not an all-metal barrel like the AI-s versions.

 

Those who complain about softness of the f/1.4 may have gotten a bad sample...see Bjorn's reviews of the various "50's" at http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html

I'd recommend the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8, in spite of what a previous poster mentioned as excessive CA. I believe that this could be sample-dependent, as mine has only a modest amount of CA, and in fact, my Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 shows more CA than the 20mm. The colour rendition on the 20mm is to die for...it's that good.

 

A Nikkor 20mm sample pic: http://therion256.smugmug.com/gallery/1789314/2/93753127

 

Another: http://therion256.smugmug.com/gallery/616143/2/84430688

 

For your budget, the Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 is a decent choice, though there is a fair amount of barrel distortion and some light falloff at the 18-22mm part of the zoom range. This is typical for a zoom lens with wide angle ability in this price range (~ $200-250 these days.)