berryl

Todd, Is that true, the ML-3 does not funtion well. The reason I want a wireless remote is for convienence mainly, however it is nice for keeping the camera still for certain types of exposiers, and being able to take a shot without being near the camera. The selftimer works but is not very convienent.

Berryl

So if I understand correctly the d-200 does not have a built in reciever like the d-70 does. And you are saying that this is probably good sence the reciever system on the d-70 is basicly a piece of #%*!# um junk. This new system will work from a 360 degree circle plus the uploading and remote control features. Eather way it will reqire a two piece setup. Looks like the ML-3 the way to go as I do not see the WT-3A being worth $600.00. Thanks guys, as always it is appreachated.

Berryl

Thanks,

But I have been to that site before, they do not really give out to much info. However I checked them out again and they say nothing about the WT-3A that I have not already got. The ML-3 has two parts and in order to use it you have to attach the reciever end to the hot shoe and plug in the 10 pin connector. Why so complicated when the d-70 remote is one piece, nothing to hook up to the camera. You would thing with the D-200 being the superior camera it would have at least the same setup! Thanks for looking though!

Berryl

I did a search on the wireless remote just released recently and the thread

refered to back on 8-8 did not have much information. I noticed one store

listed it on their add. They had no picture of it but had it listed for

$599.00. Again with no information of any value. There has been some bits and

pieces about wireless transmition to the computer and controling the camera

from the computer but no good writeups. Does anyone have any real info on

this. Why so expensive? What I really want is a simple wireless remote to

fire the d-200 just like they have for the d-70. One that does not require any

attachments to the body or special wires ect.ect. Even the store I do business

with does not seem to know much. You would'nt think it would be this

complicated. And I do not want to spend about $600.00 unless this thing does

something truly amazing. So If you know anything I would appricate the help.

Thanks

Berryl

Hey Leon,

Thanks for the headsup!

Are you refering to the fisheyes also. I was thinking that my next lense would be eather the nikon 10.5 fisheye or the 12-24 zoom. Have not decided yet. However you post probibly saved me some time and money. What do you think?

Berryl

84 filters?? I can only try to imagine 84 effects

Brian, you are right in that I do not use most of them very often. As for as my picture post are concerned, there are not very many there as I am new to this and am learning how to resize and download ect, ect. I just today learned how to move pictures from one folder to another on PN. Its not exactly drag and drop. I have many many pictures from my film days that used these filters and I may have a few scanned and put on my computer. This all takes time and money however all of which we seem to have less of each day. Some of the filters are pretty radical but they do produce interesting effects. And you are right I did use my ND and Polarizer along with a few portrait filters the most but it is nice to have one when you need it. I am learning photoshop, been practicing for about year now, and it does replace quit a few of the filters. It is a wonderful program. To answer you last question, right now I use mostly the polarizer, ND, and a few other Graduated filters. Thanks for the response.

Berryl

Thanks Jan and all the rest that have responded, being able to ask questions and recieve answers from superior photographers is well worth the annual membership dues all by itself. I think I will keep the d-50, per all your advise, however I cannot bring myself to sell the Minolta and all it's complementry equipment, for I have grown to attached to them over the years, Hell I still have my first real camera, a Pentax K-1000. I think I will just wait for the d-5 to come down in price as I am sure it will, and buy it then. At least that is what I am planning so far. I anyone else has an idea of course its welcome. Thanks again!

Berryl

You are asking this question on the wrong forum!

Dee, I don't know, I am very new to PN and or forums in general, so you may be right, I just thought I would like to get dedicated nikon users opinions sence that will be my camera of choice from now on.

Let me know where you think should have been place for this question.

Thanks

Berryl

I will try to address all who have answered so far, by the way thanks for responding so fast with good advice. Vivek, this may be true but you are suggesting I sell a really good film camera and thousands of dollars in lenses for very little. Its kind of hard to do that. Also I have used the Minolta 7000 for years and am very comfortable with it. I bought the d-50 only because at the time Minolta was leaving us and I was scared to invest a lot of money in a system with questionable future. I was so impressed with the D-50 and adapted to it so quickly that I bought the d-200 and am now in love with it. Shun, replacing about 84 filters, some very expensive ones, is beyond my ability at this time as I would want to start buying filters for the camera I use most being the d-200. And don't forget I still use my Minolta 7000 a far amount. Dave, you are right about not needing that many filters for digital however there still are quit a few that can be used. But so far the general concensious is do not do it. Are you sure? Thanks.

Berryl

I would like to know if you think I am making a mistake here. My main camera

is a d-200, my backup is a d-50, and my film camera is a Minolta 7000. Here is

the probelm. I have many lenses for my Nikons, and I have and equal number of

Minolta lenses. Most cover all the optical spectrum on both the Nikon and the

Minolta. I also have an extensive Coken Filter collection that being the A-

type fit mostly on my Minolta lenses. I have an oppertunity to trade my d-50

for an Minolta D-5 which I could use all my Minolta lenses on and the Coken

Filters. So then my Minolta D-5 would be my backup and if I need a special

filter for a particular shot I would have that to without going back to film.

Is this a smart move are not. I would appricate your comments.

Sincerly

Berryl

Hey Patrick,

Could you do that for me too. I hate to bother you, but I would really appreciate it. Thanks

Berryl

No ratings:

And I just thought that my posts really were as bad I thought they were! Phew! what a relief.

Berryl

You know I've been waiting for about 4 months now for my 18-200 vr. I have been lucky in that I have a friend that lets me barrow his {grudgingly} once in a while. I list it in my equipment file because I have paid for my in full and am just waiting and waiting and waiting. Since I own it on paper I guess its ok. Well that was a windy paragraph over nothing, Sorry, Just wanted to get it off my chest. Thanks

Berryl

I am almost afraid to ask, but how old would an antique photo be?

Old Pico,

I'm not sure if that how you want to be addressed, but thats a good point. I do not think that there has to be a certain age, just older photos from a different time so to speak. But maybe say pre 1960s could be a good start. What do you think>

Berryl

Dear Sirs,

I don't know if anyone has suggested this yet, if they have I'm sorry for the

redundancy, but what about an old photo or antique photo forum. I was looking

through some old photos my father {now deceased} took, and he had being a semi

pro and avid photographer has to me some great shots. Now a lot of older

photographers never had much of an oppertuninty to show their photos, and I

thought it would be nice to do so. Especially for those who have now left us.

I believe that even though they may be old photographs we could still learn

from them. Now this raises another question I would like to ask. Is it

acceptable to post photos from my fathers collection given permission from my

mother and given the right credits or is this something not done. Again I am

sorry if this came up before and I would not want to waste anyones time,

however I would like to know.

Sincerly

Berryl

Tom, Thanks for that thread, it was a very informative and interesting read. It helps a lot. And I think you are right about the infrared setting of my remote flash.

Thanks,

Berryl

Which one looks best is NOT the issue! I want to know why the first and last images are so different when the ONLY DIFFERENCE between the two is the use of the monitor pre-flash. Is it triggering a slight underexposure which is darkening the image?

Hey Rich, Sorry man, I was just trying to add a little humor to the conversation. But seriously, I don't know why so much a difference, I do not get the same results that you do. Hopefully a more experence member can help us out here.

Berryl

if it is now recieving

Sorry for typo, I meant not recieving.

Berryl

I like the preflash picture the best!

Go figure. I still would like to know why my sb-600 is going off if it is now recieving any light from the camera flash? Any answers anybody?

Berryl

Hey Dave,

You are probably right but why when I cover the flash completely with a black lens bag does my remote flash which was sitting behind my camera and faced the other way still go off. If it is recieving no light to set it off then what?? Just wondering!!

I've assumed that in addition to the preflashes there has to be one flash with the shutter open to tell the remotes when to fire.

Dave, I do not believe that the d-200 set in cammander mode uses flash to trigger the other remote flashes. This would be needed if using a slave configuration however in this case the camera is communicating via signal transmission. Might be wrong though, anyone else know??

Berryl

Great idea Shun,

I just ran the same test Rich did and the difference between no flash and flash set to -- was neglageable. Rich your aperture had to be different between the two.

Berryl

Kelly,

I'm not sure what your point is here {no sarcasm intended} If its the spread difference back in the 60's between the two then I think that spread is a lot less today, agreed??

Berryl