keith_lubow

<p>A camera is what it is, regardless of what comes along after it. The D700 is a great camera for a decent price, no matter what came before it or comes after it. When the new one comes out at $3,000, what on Earth do you think it will have that will make it worth about $700 more to you? Cameras have reached the point where they have FAR more than anyone really needs. You have the green light. Just GO for it, and get a good ten years out of your camera. That is what will make the most financial sense – not worrying about new models and what you could have, etc. Just get a great camera for a decent price, keep it and USE it for a very long time, and you have screwed the system of buying new gizmos every two years up the bunghole and have much more of your cash in hand over the years.</p>

<p>"The filter factor varies according to how the filter is rotated and its orientation to the sun. The B+W Filter factor I use is between 2.3 and 2.8 (approx. +1.3 stops).</p>

 

<p>Hope this helps."</p>

<p>It doesn't help at all. In fact, it hurts, because it is wrong. As many of the other responders have stated, each polarizing filter has a fixed factor. Turning it changes its effect on certain subjects within the picture, but does not give one variable neutral density.</p>

 

<p>The largest difference between these two cameras is how they feel to use. Both can make gorgeous images in a wide range of situations. However, the D700 "feels" like a professional body to me. They are fast and intuitive, and seem like they could do double duty as hockey pucks. I like Canons just fine, but to me, their 5DII just feels a bit inferior to the D700 in most ways that someone who loves shooting would care about. It having near-double the pixels of the D700 and how this affects noise are perhaps the least important and least distinguishable differences between these two cameras.<br /> <br /> One could talk about theory and peep at pixels all day long and not have the real practical answer for their own work. We'd have to rent one of each, and make prints from each to know if there was a real-world difference in image quality for anything we shoot. This technical comparison between cameras has been ridiculous for some time. How much more do those of us on photo forums have to peep at pixels? What more do we need? There isn't a bad camera made these days.</p>

<p>Being that I still shoot the 10D, and have no plans to upgrade any time soon, since it meets my needs for a digital camera perfectly, I would say that either of these newer cameras you mention are above and beyond what 90 percent of photographers need for their image quality needs; one should pick the one that is most within budget, is most intuitive to use, and which will accept ones favorite lenses.</p>

<p>IMHO, we passed the point of gluttony with digital cameras years ago. What else could 90 percent of people possibly need on one from this point forward? To get a camera that you love using, and will last you and satisfy you day in and day out for at least a decade is what I suggest. For 90 percent of us, getting any less than 10 years of good, hard service from one of these new cameras before upgrading is just silly.</p>

<p>You mean it wasn't actually shot on 2x3 sheet film, Alvin?</p>

<p>Good to know, Roland. That explains why all my glass is marked Nippon-Kogaku.</p>

<p>"With film the process was to bracket & pray with every photo."</p>

<p>oh my....</p>

<p>I would maybe be disappointed if I was of the digital persuasion, but I don't know about pissed. Folks with a lot of money tied up in the R are also folks who can either afford very nice film scanners or lab fees, if they really need the pix to be digital.</p>

<p>Greg,</p>

<p>Fortunately for us, those are old photographer's myths in most cases.</p>

<p>Film of any speed available to use is ABSOLUTELY FINE with <em>repeated</em> scanning by carry on baggage scanners. Even IR film.</p>

<p>Anyone's film is at more risk by being taken out in the light and rifled through by a security guard than it is being passed through the carry on scanners. You want the film to be kept out of the light more than anything, and you don't want people poking, prodding, swabbing, rifling, and possibly dropping it.</p>

<p>Checked baggage scanners will, indeed, affect the film. Anyone who claims to have had film fogged by carry on scanners <em>might</em> be correct, if the scanners used were old. It is usually in very, shall we say "budget-counscious" third-world countries that you find these still in use...but almost anywhere in Europe? No problem.</p>

<p>Thank you for the responses. Perhaps the solution is simply to stick with Canon and invest in a higher-quality adapter. Then I can use them on any body; low or high end, without modification.</p>

<p>Roland, I was aware of the models that allow mounting of NAI glass, and have personally experienced the issue of focusing accuracy at apertures wider than f/2.8, both on my Canon and on a friend's D40.</p>

<p>It seems this is the one case where Nikon backwards compatibility does not apply all that well.</p>

<p>Again, the lenses will not be AId. I am not cutting them up! They are my babies, and would only need to serve on digital about 5% of the time. They've made it 40 years as is, and I respect that! :D</p>

<p>Mr. Rowlett,</p>

<p>It is not as bad as you think...</p>

<p>First of all, please read my second post to Mr. Shishin.</p>

<p>Second of all, he got the gold star for the photo; not for use of Leica. That was my point, and my poke.</p>

<p>We can all relax and take our chill pills.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I know Alex...We are all Leica lovers...and some of us sometimes makes jokes, even! ;)</p>

<p>Oh, good Lord.....</p>

<p>This is what I wrote:</p>

<p>"That is what is stated every time the topic of a full frame digital Leica RF comes up: that the relatively extreme angles of the light at the edges of the full frame sensor cannot be handled by the micro lenses while still producing a "Leica-quality" pic."</p>

<p>Notice the colon. It indicates that the phrase which follows the colon is the specific to which I was referring generally in the phrase before the colon. I wrote that "I mean that, barring major sensor changes, in order for the lenses to have "Leica quality" at the edges of the pix on a digital Leica rangefinder, they would have to be redesigned." I did not write that Leica is redesigning anything! In fact, they are not! They have stated that they will be tackling the problem from the sensor end of it...hence the funny, ha ha. This can be found in several threads on various Websites that discuss the prospects of a full frame Leica M. <em>You could try the first hit that comes up in a Google search for "full frame Leica M":</em> http://nemeng.com/leica/004fa.shtml, for one.</p>

<p>Come on, now...Surely you have not sold your sense of humor in order to afford your Leica. I was simply making an opinionated joke as to the IMO silly choices made by Leitz's management re: R&D for the past 45 years.</p>

<p>This post is about current Leica technological developments. I put in my two cents. Forgive me if I think Leica is silly re: their development and want to make a comment about it. There is no need to distract from the OP with so many needling posts just because you misunderstood something someone wrote. If you have an honest inquiry of me, and want me to personally clarify something that is off topic, e-mail me. Otherwise, it just seems like needling; forgive me if I took it the wrong way.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I explained in my last post what I meant about current technology not making for "Leica quality" at the edges. No, I did not claim that Leica is redesiging lenses to suit a full frame sensor. I was simply poking fun at them, because it is just the kind of asinine thing that they would do; try to force people to rebuy their lenses when 1.3x is just fine by me and most! Relax. Go pick a fight with someone who actually is an idiot, and let me make a dry, cynical joke without a series of disclaimers. I swear the Leica crowd is worse than a hockey crowd...</p>

<p>Hi, Ken Shipman. You can unbunch your panties any time now. Of course the current lenses cover a 35mm frame (thus would cover a full frame sensor). I mean that, barring major sensor changes, in order for the lenses to have "Leica quality" at the edges of the pix on a digital Leica rangfinder, they would have to be redesigned. That is what is stated every time the topic of a full frame digital Leica RF comes up: that the relatively extreme angles of the light at the edges of the full frame sensor cannot be handled by the micro lenses while still producing a "Leica-quality" pic. I just said that they don't need to go full frame to appease me. That is all.</p>

<p>Basically, Nippon Kogaku was the original name of the company. "Nikkor" was their line of glass. "Nikon" was their line of cameras. It is similar to the way Leica was the name of cameras made by the Ernst Leitz company (Leica = <strong>Lei</strong> tz + <strong>ca</strong> mera), but the company later changed its name to Leica. Nippon Kogaku officially changed its name to Nikon about 20 years ago.</p>

<p>As for when the full company name was stopped being marked on the lenses, I am not sure.</p>

<p>Christian, thanks for your reply. I won't cut up my beautiful old glass. No way in hell. Like I said, I'd rather modify a Nikon body to take the glass than the lenses to fit on Nikon bodies. These lenses' primary use is and always will be on my Nikon Fs and F2s, and so it will remain even though I want a better digital right now. The glass is beautiful and has given me years of service on many thousands of shots. If anything, I'd buy AId lenses before doing that.</p>

<p>I have 24 2.8, 28 3.5, 35 1.4, 35 2.0 (my favorite), 50 1.4 (my second favorite), 50 micro, 55 1.2, 85 1.8, 105 2.5, 135 3.5, 300 4.5. I had a 200 4.0 but got rid of it, as it was too soft for a lot of things, and I wanted an extra stop. I use Canon FD 200 2.8 instead. (One of my most used lenses is a 200mm.)</p>

<p>Tony, glad to see someone else seeing the benefits of doing this. The lack of meter is not really an issue. I usually use variations off of sunny 16, or an incident meter most of the time. I don't even bother putting batteries in my cameras, as I think in-camera reflected meters are worse than an educated guess.</p>

<p>The focusing problems come at wide apertures. The focusing screens on AF cameras typically only show you the D of F at f/2.8 or so, even if your lens is faster. Thus if shooting wider than f/2.8, things can look in focus when they are not. I would definitely be interested to learn more about the aftermarket options that show less D of F, like the current Canon S screens, or the old Canon FD F screen.</p>

<p>The Nikkors definitely have a different character than any of my other glass. They are lower contrast and lower resolution than my FD S.S.C. or EOS lenses. The look is very reminiscent of my LTM equipment; a bit more "graphic" than newer lenses. Less detail in the shadows (good in my book), lower contrast (also good in my book), unique rendering of the out of focus areas, though perfectly razor sharp. (Sharpness and resoultion are two different things. What I love about them is that they are sharp, yet low resolution.) I know from using them on the 10D that this translates to digital no problem. The pix I take that way look different than any other digital pix I take.</p>

<p>For sports, I used a 1DIIN or my friend's D2H. I don't really shoot that anymore, though. I am looking at this option as a way to take "fun" digital pix that will always remain in electronic format, and to create portfolio shots for artists and do other commercial work. I currently adapt this glass to my 10D for these things, but it is becoming more and more often that the 6 Mpix won't cut it.</p>

<p>They could have stopped at the M2 IMO, and never even introduced the Leicaflex.</p>

<p>Not a thing in need of improvement or change on that camera. Wanna save some money, Leica? Just make that baby again and close the R&D dept. for good.</p>

<p>No offense, but when I want an SLR, I find that there are better options than Leica, and for higher values. I can't believe they even made sales enough to have taken it as far as the R9.</p>

<p>If anything, they should just give the M8 higher ISOs, IMO. Leave everything the same, just make it a D3 competitor for low light shooting. I am not stuck on full frame. It's arbirary anyhow...and I don't want to have to buy brand new redesigned lenses just so I can have a full frame rangefinder.</p>

<p>Congrats on winning the award.</p>

<p>However, if you want a gold star for using a Leica to do it, I just don't know what to say. A pic is a pic and a camera is a camera.</p>

<p>I should clarify what I just posted. Let me change that one passage to:</p>

<p>You should also know that it can make quickly composed and shot pictures even more blurry, even at fast shutter speeds, so should be allowed to "settle in" before you fire off a shot. This also applies even if the light is good enough for a hand held shot without it. When you raise the camera and fire a shot quickly, the VR parts are still shifting around trying to figure out what to do when you actually take the shot, so the shot becomes unsharp.</p>

<p>Do you need it? Absolutely not. It is a relatively new feature, and 100% of my favorite photos of all time were taken before ANY telepoto was widely used, let alone one with VR or IS.</p>

<p>If used properly, does it do what it claims to do? Absolutely. It is a wonderful and useful tool.</p>

<p>What it does is one thing: It works to counteract the visual effects of camera shake. It thus allows the use of slower shutter speeds than one would normally be able to use for a sharp shot hand held. With slower sutter speeds come all the effects thereof, including more motion blur. You should also know that it can make quickly composed and shot pictures even more blurry, even at fast shutter speeds, so should not be engaged if the light is good enough for a hand held shot. That is pretty much all you need to know. Your specific situation will have to determine whether it is worth the extra money to you or not.</p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>That is exactly what I was talking about in my last paragraph.</p>

<p>I am not worried about AF lenses being unusable. I am trying to avoid them, after all, hence the OP.</p>

<p>Although I would remove the tab (likely have it removed by a professional), not break it off.</p>

<p>I just wonder if the camera would still fire away, like the low-end bodies do, or if it would be "too smart" and sense that somethign was amok.</p>

<p>Also, very interested in seeing examples of this.</p>

<p>One more thing: I prefer the image qualities of old singly-coated, lower-resolution NAI glass over any of the new lenses. Yet another reason to try to use them.</p>

<p>As I just mentioned in another post, digital is a secondary medium for my pix. It is not worth it for me to invest in a bunch of new stuff. Been there, done that with nice EOS kit (1DIIN, etc). Sold most of it and went back to the good stuff. Kept the 10D backup and the 50mm 1.2L.</p>

<p>I'd take them both, and use them both; the 1V for the primary camera and the shots that matter and that I actually might print, and the 40D for "fun" shots that will be best in digital format, and probably will never be printed. If not, sell the 1V to me or someone who has no qualms about using it. Don't let one of the best cameras ever made just sit and do nothing (and this is beside the fact that it outdoes a 40D as far as "build quality" and "functionality" goes). Aside from storage space, just treat it any other time you would shoot. If you are used to shooting both, and comfortable doing so, then do the same on your trip. Camera bodies don't take up much space in luggage.</p>

<p>DO remember to carry on the 1V and your film, however. Do not check your film. It can be scanned without damage by carryon scanners, but checked baggage scanners will damage the film.</p>

<p>Also, do not use your digital histogram as an exposure meter. You'll get better exposures by exposing each medium slightly differently. I am sure you know that already, though.</p>

<p>FWIW, digital is a secondary medium for me. I like it, and it is useful, but not for most things in my life...basically only when 1. there never need to be any "decent" prints made (lithographic or photographic), such as the aforementioned "fun pix", or web-only applications 2. I need to finish something really quickly, 3. I don't give a rat's ass about the pix (shooting for money, in other words).</p>

<p>At work, where I shoot 95% of my digital pix, numbers 1, 2, and 3 apply.</p>

<p>AIing my glass is NOT an option! :D</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies thus far.</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I have been seriously considering the purchase of a D40x or D60 because I have so much great NAI glass (and can get more for a very reasonable price).</p>

<p>With the D5000, now I am again considering forking over the dough...I am very tempted, but the focusing screen issue is a big turnoff.</p>

<p>I have no problem with manual aperture and no meter. My biggest problem will be the focusing screen that is designed for slow zooms making focusing accuracy spotty at the widest apertures (which I use a large portion of the time). Unfortunately, the D5000 does not have the option to install a low-light focusing screen.</p>

<p>I have used my NAI glass adapted to my Canon 10D. It works fine, but I miss having an accurate distance scale.</p>

<p>So, in effect, I'd be paying $750 just to have an accurate focusing scale, and would also lose metering ability (which, ironically enough, is retained on the Canon body but not on the Nikon body). Hardly seems worth it.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, I am interested in hearing anyone's experiences using the NAI glass on a Nikon digital body, and hopefully I can see some samples as well.</p>

<p>Has anyone hacked an AI digital body so it will take NAI glass? Can it be done? Older digitals are really cheap now, so that might be an option for me. Much cheaper to hack a D700 or D300 than to replace all my NAI glass with autofocus glass.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Interesting that there are so many votes for the the 1Ds Mk. II. I would have expected more of a vote for the 5D. I am having this same debate with myself now. I will be getting back into digital shooting in the next year, and I am going to turn my 10D into a backup and get a used full frame camera. I am torn between 5D and 1Ds Mk. II. I know and love the 1-series bodies, and I am biased toward them simply because I love having a brick shithouse of a camera that will last me for a decade if I want it to. However, it is somewhat of a battery hog, is heavier, and most people seem to conclude that the 5D gives a slightly better image for all practical applications, especially at high ISO. I mostly shoot at ISOs 400 or above, and at least 75% of the time I am at 1600. Technically, I don't need the build quality of the 1-series camera, although I simply love it. However, I love how when shooting at high ISOs, I can get a very film-like look with the 10D, so the 1Ds Mk. II might fit the bill just right because it is not quite as clean as the 5D, but a little cleaner than the 10D and has almost three times the resolution. I am also very interested in dynamic range comparisons. I think that will be more of the deciding factor for me, actually.</p>