jwallphoto

I use an old Ai-S 50/1.4 on my D200 and like to refer to it as my 4x5 lens. ;)

 

FWIW, the new AF-S lens takes 58mm filters vs. 52mm for the older Ai-S version.

One thing no one has mentioned is that the D300 has 100% viewfinder accuracy vs. 95% on the D200. If you're a tripod shooter and careful composer, that can be an issue. I came to the D200 straight from many years of film shooting with an F3, and I'm disappointed sometimes by the 5% of some unwanted element that gets into my frames. When I can get a used D300 for $1K, I'll probably be on it.

I've been told the extra megabytes from a scanned image are noise, but I look forward to more considered responses.

Throw a pinch of salt over your shoulder to keep your sensor clean.

Like Rob says, it's also going to be about what you like to shoot. If you are getting results that you're happy with by using one, then by all means go for it. Heck, I'd love it if I could get at least *almost* everything I want in a P&S, but nothing quite covers all the bases yet.

My local repair guy in Oakland is good and reasonably priced. Call Allen at Apollo Camera Service (510-891-9486).

<div></div>

FWIW, I saw today that used D200s are going for around $600-650 on ebay.

Is the loud mirror-slap macho enough to scare away all the wildlife? ;)

I finally went completely digital only just this year, trading in my trusty F3 for a D200. Even though I'll probably never

go back to the F3, I have to wonder about two excellent features my F3 had -- even when it first came out in the 70s --

that my D200 lacks.

 

First is 100% viewfinder accuracy. When I stacked an ND filter and a thin polarizer on my 12-24mm to shoot a

waterfall in full sun this weekend, I was surprised that I didn't see any vignetting in the viewfinder. Oops. It was there.

You just couldn't see it.

 

Second is a little lever that shuts a curtain in the viewfinder so no light gets in when you want to take your eye away,

such as when you want to be in an auto-exposure mode while using the self-timer to include yourself in the photo or

when shooting from a tripod with a cable release.

 

I could trade up to the D300 to get 100% viewfinder accuracy, but if I jump all the way to the D700, I gotta go back to

the inferior 95%. And though I don't know for sure, I'll bet neither one has that nice, simple viewfinder curtain feature.

Alan D., thank you. I think you nailed it.

Peter L., you are correct. I also thought it didn't seem right. So anyway, I get the Numb Nut Award of the day. The lens was set to Limit, which kept it from going to 1:1 even manually. D'oh!

 

When I redid the test with the lens set at Full, it did go to 1:1. With the Raynox added to the lens at infinity, it was less than 1:1, as someone calculated in the other thread. And the additional magnification of the Raynox with the lens at 1:1 was probably just over 2X, also as someone calculated.

Please refer to these three photos:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jwallphoto/sets/72157606008740576/

 

Adding the Raynox 250 (8-diopter) close-up lens, even with the Nikon 105 AF-D Micro set at infinity, clearly gives a

magnification ratio greater than the 1:1 allowed by the lens without the Raynox. But how do you calculate what the

magnification ratio actually is with the Raynox attached?

 

Thanks again!

Say I have a Nikon 105mm micro that goes to 1:1, and I attach a Raynox DCR-250 (8-diopter) to the front.

 

What the mag ratio if my lens is at infinity? And what is it when I'm focused at 1:1?

 

And how did you figure out the answer?

 

Many thanks!

Do a blog. Start now, using what you're doing and learning as you prepare for the trip. That'll get you in the habit of writing and taking pictures. Find a way to keep it going when you're overseas. If it's good, it'll get attention. (In fact, sign me up.) Plus you'll learn and hone your storytelling skills, you'll share your adventure with others, and you'll have a nice "product" at the end that might even come in handy if/when you apply for school later on. You can even use the blog as notes for a book. The thing is to get started right now to get your skills as good as possible before you take off.

Monet might have had something else in mind by repetition, such as showing a place in different light and different seasons. Read: In 1883 Monet moved from the north-west of Paris to Giverny where he lived until his death. Adjacent to his property was a small pond which he acquired in 1893, where he created a water garden with an arched bridge in the Japanese style. In 1900 he exhibited a series of ten canvases of the pond, showing a single subject in differing light conditions. He worked on similar series representing poplars, haystacks and the fa�e of Rouen Cathedral during the same period.

 

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=ng4240

I was a film shooter waiting for FF, but I finally caved in January and picked up a used D200. I haven't had so much fun with photography in years. With the arrival of the D700, I look forward to soon picking up a used D300 for $1K.

When you share a photo on Flickr, it is automatically open for comments. To get comments, you should also submit the photo to Groups. Otherwise, no one will see your pictures. But first you need to find some groups and join them. Then you open Organizer and figure out how to submit your pix to groups. Keep in mind, comments are not critiques. Comments are almost always so bland ("nice!" "great shot!") that they try to dress them up in silly gif "awards". Sometimes I wonder if Flickr is killing my love of photography. ;)

A real photographer has a photo of himself mooning a peacock.

Oops, "no words" (sorry!)

I forget the name of the club. It was in downtown Norfolk, VA, while I

was in the navy, so somwhere around 1977-1981. Prepared from scan of

print. Lost the neg many years ago.<div></div>

Spring and fall can both be accommodating. The earlier in the day, the better. Get a fog forecast before you go. I'll bet today is great down there, but tomorrow the fog's supposed to come back in.

If there is no critically focused point in the entire image (you're not front-focused or back-focused), I would guess that

Philip Turner is on the right track. The problem might not be your eyes, but your hands. As for me, I went AF. ;)

Don, I don't know why you'd want to jam all those pixels on the even smaller sensor of an FZ18, although I can see it if it's just for the small size of a backpacking camera. I even liked my FZ5 until I lost it on a car-camping trip. Just a little *too* small, maybe.

As John Watson said, you often get serious eye-shine problems, so you should be prepared to deal with that.