mark_scheuern

Just to clarify about the lens not locking in place, it means just that: it doesn't lock. It does, however, stay on just like the body cap does. It's just that since it's free to rotate without pressing the unlock button on the body, you need to hold it while you're focusing. But it doesn't just fall off if you're not holding it.

 

Mark

I archive onto external drives <I>and</I> CDs and/or DVDs. It's always safer to have multiple copies, preferably in different physical locations.

Yes, the Royal Camera price is <A HREF="http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1895.html">too good to be true</A>. And I'll also second the opinion of those who have said that, if you have a need for such a camera, the D2h is excellent. I've worked with a borrowed D2h (I normally shoot with a D100) and it's a joy to use. Currently a real bargain, IMO, at its proper, non-crooked dealer price.

My wife understand it and actively encourages me. Shooting takes me away from home a fair amount of time and puts a bit more of a burden on her but she knows what it means to me. (Though, come to think of it, maybe it does give her more time with her significant other...) She also has a much better business sense than I have and helps a lot with record-keeping and such. She's frequently a big help with editing, too.

 

We both had jobs that became increasingly soul-sucking over the years and now we're both doing the things we love. She quit her job a few years ago, went back to school, and is now doing something completely different. The money is less (so far, anyway) but the rewards are much greater. We've both had some reminders recently of how short life can be and how important it is to not waste too many moments.

I bought an FG long ago and inertia more than anything else has kept me with Nikon. I've never really had a good reason to switch. Now, why I happened to pick the FG in the first place I have no idea. It worked out well for me. I still have it, in fact.

<P><EM><BLOCKQUOTE>But having seen some of the wideangle distortions that 24mm does to heads near the edge of the frame I don't dare to point this lens at people anymore. One also has to pay a lot more of attention to hold the camera straight as the wideangle perspective will exaggerate slanted buildings etc.</BLOCKQUOTE></EM></P>

<P>Nico, at 24 mm on the digi you're getting the same field of view as you would at 36 mm on the film camera so what you describe shouldn't happen. Are you sure you're seeing this effect?</P>

<P><EM><BLOCKQUOTE>multiplier? cut away the half of a full frame image and you have the same</BLOCKQUOTE></EM></P>

<P>Assuming your full-frame sensor has 24.8 megapixels</P>

The percentage of coverage and magnification are two different things. What we need is greater viewfinder magnification.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see any debris go anywhere near the FIA-sanctioned area where the FIA-credentialed photographers would normally be. No doubt there were some corner marshals around there as well and I haven't heard about any of them being killed. Or maybe the police tossed them out as well. I'll also point out that two of the "idiots" included the Sutton brothers, who I think have been to a few more Grands Prix than the local cops and had considerably more right to be there than they did.

<P>Sorry, should have made that a link: <A HREF="http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=31008">http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=31008</A></P>

I came across this and found it interesting:

 

"The police confronted a gathering of [FIA-credentialed]

photographers at the first corner just minutes before the start of

the race."

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=31008

Their ISP appears to be tin.it. http://www.tin.it redirects to another page and there are some contact addresses and numbers there. Good luck with this.

It's a very sharp lens and the push-pull zoom doesn't really bother me. I use it on my film and digital bodies. It's useful on the digi as a normal to short tele and makes a decent portrait lens.

<P><EM><BLOCKQUOTE>Are you shooting something likely to through the meter off</BLOCKQUOTE></EM></P>

<P>Or <EM>throw</EM> the meter off, even? My typing's rapidly detrioriating.</P>

I also use the PK-13 with my 300 mm and it nicely decreases the minimum focusing distance (and the maximum as well, of course--you won't be able to focus on infinity). Be aware that you'll lose autofocus along with some light.

 

You are asking about extension tubes and not teleconverters, right? They're two different things.

I have an L358 and it's an excellent incident and flash meter. Incidentally (get it? Sorry...) you won't need the flash meter function with hotlights but will if you get the Alien Bees (which I also have and like very much). You'll just be metering the continuous light from your hotlights.

 

I am wondering, though, why the D70 is consistantly underexposing. Are you shooting something likely to through the meter off, like a white background? You might try spot-metering with the D70 and/or adjusting things until you get a decent looking histogram. Not that I don't recommend getting a nice incident/flash meter like the L-358; it's a worthwhile purchase, especially if you're going to get studio strobes at some point.

Ray, I believe D-TTL is specifically for digital bodies so it doesn't apply to the F100. Nikon had to develop a new TTL system because the reflectivity of the digital sensor is different than film (and possibly for other reasons as well).

I recently shot some motorsports with a (borrowed) D2H, a (borrowed) 17-55, and my usual 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S and 300 f/4. The 17-55 and 80-200 (or 70-200) is a great combo. Those two will give you everything you need except for those times when you need to go really wide or long. I definitely am planning on buying the 17-55 for myself as soon as I can.

 

If you have some extra money for a prime, I'd take a look at the 300 f/4. Very useful for motorsports (though not quite as useful, especially with a teleconverter, as the much more expensive 300 f/2.8) and no overlap in focal length with the two zooms, though I suppose if you need a really fast lens in that focal length the 85 f/1.4 would be great. And you really can't beat the 50 mm f/1.8 for the price.

Of the current Nikon flashes, the SB800. On a film body, the old SB-28 will work about as well, though it lacks the nice metal foot and quick-release lever that's on the newer flash. I wouldn't be surprised if you could pick up a used SB-28 from someone who went digital. Of course if you have any plans at all to get a digital body in the future it's worth getting the SB800.

I have both and they're both fine lenses. As others have said, on a film body, the 20 mm is quite wide and using it effectively is a bit tricky. The 24 mm is more generally useful though the 20 is nice when you need it and a lot of fun.

 

On a digital, think of the 20 as a 28 and the 24 as a 35 (not quite, but close enough). The 20 is a very useful lens on a digital body.

 

Mark

The feel of the D2h reminds me a lot of my much-loved F100.

Leonard, I'm wondering if you're talking about real distortion (like barrel or pincushion) or the sort of normal effect one gets with a wide lens. While 18 mm isn't exactly ultrawide with the 1.5x crop factor, it can take a bit of practice to get used to using a wide. I haven't used the 18-70 and wouldn't be surprised if there's some genuine distortion, especially at the extremes of the zoom range, but that doesn't quite sound like what you're describing. Maybe you could post an example?

Oops, the above poster was right: you were asking about the 10D. Still, the correct comparison, in my mind, is with the 300D since the prices are much closer.

<P>Thom Hogan has what strikes me as a pretty reasonable <A HREF="http://www.bythom.com/300D.htm">review and comparison</A>.</P>

I use mine on both film and digital bodies and it's an excellent lens, especially for the price. Sharp, contrasty, and a useful focal length, too. 24 mm is wide on a film body but not so wide that it becomes hard to deal with, and, since 35 mm is a useful focal length, too, also good (though in a different way) with digital.