rick_keir

There's a WWII picture of George Rodger and Capa in the Capa biography "Blood and

Champagne". Rodger is carrying a Leica, Capa a Contax. A photo of David Douglas Duncan

at http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/gallery/dddportraits/585.html shows

him with a Rollei TLR. In his Korean War days, he was famous for using Leicas with Nikon

LTM lenses.

From <a href="http://bythom.com/18200lens.htm">Thom Hogan's review</a>:

<blockquote>

No Converters or extensions. The optical design of the 18-200mm means that almost any

extension would put the focus point inside the lens--I assume you don't want to focus on

the fifth element. TCs also pose multiple problems, including loss of autofocus and

potential damage to the rear element of the lens. In short, the only thing you can add to

this lens are filters (including things like a Canon 500D close-up lens).

</blockquote>

As Michael Bradtke points out, there are other reviews you should look at too. Rockwell's

comments are in the context of lenses at PMA 2006, and he adds "I'm hoping that what

were billed as production models actually had some known flaw that will be corrected in

production, or that I was consistently doing something stupid." He was using display

models at trade shows that had been subjected to who knows how much abuse. When I

used to do electronics trade shows, I was always amazed at how much of the gear in

booths was broken by the last day of the show.

Thom Hogan finds the autofocus "a bit jittery at macro distances", and Bjørn Rørslett,

though he doesn't directly address the issue of AF, comments that AF is not reliable with

teleconverters, and says he's lukewarm on the lense.

Of these three, Hogan gives it the most positive review. Hogan doesn't think AF is an

issue, because he doesn't plan on using AF at macro distances anyway. He's a nature

photographer who takes into account carrying things all day, and who is somewhat less

concerned about convenience because he's going to be spending his whole day taking

pictures. You should check out Hogan's review for his "bonus coverage" of the Tamron 90:

whether you get the Tamron or the Nikon, it pays to understand your choices.

Rockwell is clear that he emphasizes speed and ease of use when discussing 35mm/

digital, so AF matters to him. He's also writing for a more entry level audience than the

other two reviewers.

Bjørn Rørslett is doing some very precise work where things like reproduction ratio and

framing are important to him, but this stuff matters a lot less if you're not doing technical/

scientific records work.

So think about how you plan on using a lense in this focal length, and then try and match

your needs to a reviewer who's trying to address someone like you.

You are correct, for rangefinder photography, omitting straw man comparisons, like the

references to point-and-shoots versus Leicas. If this were a large format forum, your point

would be shakier (though I'd still agree). Your point is particularly well taken given the

enormous imbalance in the majority of equipment reviews. There are differences that can

be seen if you lock your camera down on a vibration free platform and shoot fine grain

film, but these differences aren't very important in the world of handheld Tri-X.

The heroes of rangefinder photography, Cartier-Bresson, Duncan, Capa, etc., used film,

lenses and bodies that were largely inferior to everything we have now. Rangefinder

photography is generally about the moment. Sure, it's possible to haul out the Visoflex

and shoot macro, or try and do Zone System stuff like Ansel Adams, but there are other

camera types better suited to such work. Rangefinders are about the moment, and ease of

use counts.

You might want to get a digital point & shoot that has a matching waterproof/watertight

housing; these run $100 - $200. Worth it, especially for people who like to vacation in wet

areas, or who have kids that swim a lot. Or if this is an uncommon situation, just put a P&S

into a plastic bag, as replacing it is cheaper than repairing a DSLR.

A very cheap alternative would be a disposable film camera; and a fun & not much more

expensive alternative would be an old film warhorse like an off brand Pentax screwmount.

The digital P&S makes a nice backup in any case. I carry a small one as a backup on

vacation (my two closest friends have BOTH have their cameras stolen during a vacation,

and I've had my camera shutter lock up on the first day). As a bonus, you can shoot short

movies with it, which comes in handy periodically for capturing dancers or other moving

subjects.

Credit for the P&S in a housing idea goes to a recent Derrick Story podcast on shooting

around water (www.thedigitalstory.com).

My own feeling is that I like the 18-200 VR as my main lens, but I'm happy to have the

18-55 kit lens for days when I don't feel like carrying a lens that costs more than the D50

it's mounted on. My last vacation trip involved many rainy days, plus hiking near the ocean

with lots of wind/salt/sand, and if I'd owned the VR then I still wouldn't have taken the

18-200 with me for that, it's too expensive and too hard to replace. VR doesn't help for

tripod shooting or at higher shutter speeds.

That said, if you can, try to get the "scarce as hen's teeth" 18-200 VR. Not changing lenses

is a great boon on digital cameras, where dust on the sensor is a real issue.

A few weeks ago Shun posted a brief note saying that B&H had them in stock and that he'd

leave the note in place till they ran out -- I ordered that same hour via the web. I did get

an automated note saying that owing to a glitch in their stocking system they were out of

stock on the item (I'm guessing they sold the same one on the phone and over the web),

but then it shipped about a week later, presumably out of their next consignment. It was

$750, not the $900 some places want for this lens.

So it's possible to get them if you check all the time -- try Adorama, B&H, Calumet, etc.,

plus your local dealers. Get on a backlist if you can.

Good luck.

An old blue diaper bag with a pattern of toy bears on it, $5.00 from the Goodwill store in

Oakland California. It's got five compartments plus a clear interior pouch and four "bottle

holders" that are perfect for slipping lenses into. That trip, I was either (1) walking rainy,

muddy trails in the redwoods, or (2) wandering around the shady parts of Oakland, which is

most of the downtown. Bags that scream "camera" or "laptop" were right out.

If I want to be stylish, I put the Leica around my neck: that's much more impressive than any

bag.

before people flip out further about the address that was given out, consider this from the

NMU website, noting information that they consider public information that they can give

out without further permission from the student (see http://www.nmu.edu/records/

directory.htm)

"Directory information at NMU includes the following information about the student:

name, local address, local telephone number, permanent address, permanent telephone

number, NMU e-mail address, dates of attendance at the university, enrollment status,

degrees earned, honors, awards, participation in officially recognized university activities

and sports, current term candidacy for degrees and/or teaching certification, program

level, class standing, major/minor"

It is possible to request that they keep this information private, but if you read the web

page, it is clear that this request will make your time in college a living hell, as you will

effectively cease to exist for many services you'll need. Mark, what you published didn't

make any difference at all. Your daughter is not living in the witness protection program,

she's joining the adult world.

I was recently at a 30th anniversary of a convention where an announcement was made that

the Guests of Honor for the last 30 years would be available for anyone who wanted their

photos, and that the PAID PHOTOGRAPHER would be in charge, making sure that he got his

shots for the sponsor, and that the guests of honor would remain posed long enough to

allow the mass photo taking as well.

The pro got an uninterrupted shoot, the other conventioneers had someone round up and

pose the returning Guests of Honor for them, so everyone was happy.

Why so harsh?

Google isn't the answer to everything. If you check out some of the customer service threads

on photo.net, you'll see plenty of accounts of people who found something "in stock" on the

website, only to have the story change when they tried to order.

<p>Two of my favorite photographers are David Douglas Duncan and Galen Rowell. I

don't shoot in a style that's very similar to them, because I do not travel in war zones,

hang out with Picasso, or climb Everest. Subject matter is a strong part of style: when we

think of the style of HCB, for example, we cannot extend it to macros or landscape work.

</p>

<p>My own style, such as it is, reflects that I mostly photograph the urban area I live in,

but I

enjoy the styles of many photographers who go places and lead lives unlike my own. </p>

<p>There's one photographer who has a "local style" that overlaps with mine, because of

similar subject matter: <a href="http://wisconsinhistory.org/whi/feature/

mcvicar/">Angus McVicar</a>, who photographed Madison for many years. There's a

great collection called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/029917820X/

104-7350182-1267129?v=glance&n=283155">"Double Take"</a>, where Zane Williams

went back and photographed the exact same settings and printed them side by side, so

you can see that changes that occured over more than 50 years. </p>

In my experience, function follows form more often than form follows function.

Any manufacturer who doesn't care enough to make their product a delight to hold and look

at, isn't likely to care enough to eliminate all the little things that make the difference

between a great product and something that you will put up with.

<p>You might want to check out Stephen Gandy's guide to used Nikons at (<a

href="http://cameraquest.com/nikonslr.htm">http://cameraquest.com/nikonslr.htm</a>

for one person's set of opinions of Nikon bodies. His opinions (1) include the older

models, and (2) deal with the issue of buying them now, used, as opposed to reviews that

focused on how good they were when issued. A used FM or FE series camera is

inexpensive and would do what you want.

</p><p>

If you want a zoom, I bought the 28ﾖ80mm ﾃ3.5ﾖ5.6 AF-D for < $100 at KEH. It'll work on

the manual focus bodies and is light and cheap if you want these ranges (I use it as a

hiking lens, so this is a pretty good range). It's often on sale there.

</p><p>

Looking at more than one lens review can be very confusing, as you'll almost certainly find

conflicting opinions. My reasoning was along the lines of (1) Galen Rowell was known to be

fond of this lens, (2) he used it for outdoor photography when weight was an issue (in

conditions much more extreme that I'll ever need), and (3) he was considered to be one of

the great landscape photographers of his generation. That let me rule out whatever

negative comments I'd seen about it being a plastic lens, feeling cheap, or somehow

having an inferior optical quality.

</p><p>

If you do buy an autofocus lens, avoid the "G" lenses - they're intended for electronic

bodies and have no mechanical aperture ring. Also avoid the DX lenses, which are

intended for use on digital SLRs and do not project a full 35mm image. Finally - if you

intend to go digital someday, most of the autofocus lenses will work fine on the current

round of digital bodies, so you may prefer a light/cheap AF lens to a manual focus lens.

</p><p>

Read http://www.photo.net/photo/where-to-buy. People are often tempted to buy on

eBay, but my experience is that, on anything that there's an actual bidding competition on,

the price rises to at least the cost from KEH, B&H, or Adorama if not more, which is silly

because they have much better reputations than nearly any eBay seller could have. </p>

The first version had the Exxon style crossed "X" and it was discontinued because of a

trademark lawsuit from Exxon (not surprising).

"McKeown's Price Guide to Antique & Classic Cameras", which is a pretty good and

encyclopedic guide, mentions these cameras, and notes that there were actually quite a

few produced so that it's unlikely to be worth more because of the crossed X; they're nice

Maxxum camera but there's probably no premium for the earlier logo.

This is of course subjective, so if you can find someone who values the doubled X logo

more, it's "worth more". People on eBay will sometimes pay prices that are above the

"rational" price, as witness the ludicrous prices that a Holga will sometimes command. You

can always hope to be selling on a day when people are suffering from irrational

exuberance.

one thought - test out your new lens on a tripod, first, and then handheld, to get an idea of

what it is capable of.

Telephoto pictures from a moving powerboat are going to be difficult, and this will help you

to sort out any softness issues due to the lens from general motion blur.

A minority view: I love the vertical strap lugs on my CL and wish that this was an option on

more cameras. It's a very comfortable camera to carry slung over my right shoulder, with it

resting naturally on my left hip. Much better than something bobbing around on my chest.

<p>Hardly a silly question. See <a href="http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/

aa091602c.htm">this article</a> for instance:</p>

<blockquote>"In San Francisco, many photographers have been stopped by Highway

Patrol officers while photographing or near the Golden Gate Bridge. Since thousands of

detailed pictures, aerial photographs, three dimensional simulations, drawings and plans

of these structures are already widely available it is hard to see any real security

justification for most of these actions."</blockquote>

<p>

Also, see <a href="http://thomashawk.com/2005_02_01_archive.html">Thomas Hawk's

website</a> for two examples: one of someone hassled while photographing in the SF

Muni, one of a photographer hassled for photograping in a public park in Chicago.</p>