john_holcomb

<p>The D700 and D300(s) were spectacular and beloved products which Nikon has refused to update. Since the D700 went out of production, and the D300s became obsolete a couple of years prior to going out of production, Nikon sports and action shooters have been left without a budget/step-down sports/action camera.<br>

Nikon appears to be playing a dangerous game with its own customers, trying to force them to ante up for the D4(s). I think the likelier outcome is that they will slowly migrate to Canon, with rich photogs using 7DIIs as second bodies for their EOS 1DS Xs, and poor ones using the 7DII as their primary body.</p>

<p><em> I took over 1500 images on Sunday testing the continuous AF with Chris' settings and almost all were in focus, not so much because the continuous AF worked so well, but because it worked well enough and was close enough based on the aperture I was using. I had the aperture stopped down enough that any minor mis-focusing did not really matter. Had I been shooting with a fast aperture lens wide open, many of my shots would have been out of focus.</em><br>

<em><br /></em>This is disappointing. What's the point of paying for a fast lens if you can't shoot it wide open?</p>

<p>Thanks for the tips. <br>

It seems that there are two independent goals with raw conversion software. First, in order to save time, you want the default rendering to be at least as good as an in-camera jpeg. Second, you want the best ultimate quality possible after user manipulations. With LR, I was put off by the default rendering, and didn't experiment with the program too much after that.<br>

Looks like I'll have to try Lightroom again.<br>

Also, I downloaded a trial copy of Capture One, and used it on some difficult (blown highlights) files. It seemed to produce good results, but not as much so as Photo Ninja, FWIW.</p>

<p>Hi All-</p>

<p>I have an old Olympus E-1 that I usually shoot in raw + jpeg mode. On the whole, I am very satisfied with the E-1's internal raw conversion, but I do like to have the raw files for those shots that need a little extra help.<br>

In the past, I've always been satisfied with Apple Aperture. With Apple's recent announcement that it is discontinuing support for that program, I recently downloaded a trial version of Lightroom. While I do not have an opinion about the ultimate functionality of Lightroom vs. Aperture, I felt that the default conversions of E-1 files were lacking in overall contrast, saturation, and sharpness. I much prefer the default Aperture rendering.<br>

Am I missing something about Lightroom? Are there presets or changes I can make to the defaults that will bring the default rendering of E-1 files up to par?<br>

Also, I am interested in whether or not anyone has found any other raw conversion software to be especially good with E-1 files. I have tried PhotoNinja on some files with seriously blown highlights, with much better results in highlight recovery than anything I can get from Aperture.<br>

Further thoughts appreciated. Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Pardon me, I meant to say "D300s."</p>

<p>Horse racing, football & baseball. In the film era, pros would carry a high-end C or N body with 300/2.8 lens, another with an 80-200 2.8, and perhaps a third with a 50 or a wideangle. I imagine that they carry about the same today, substituting full-frame digital bodies for film.<br>

It seems like a reasonable compromise for an amateur to just go with a good APS sensor SLR, and match it with the 80-200. One can add an mFT camera, or other large-sensor compact, with normal or wideangle, and do most of what the pro can do, with very little loss of quality.<br>

So I suppose my question is whether you can take the quest for compact, portable equipment even further, and use an E-M1 with appropriate glass in lieu of, say a Nikon D3s or D7100, without offsetting compromises?</p>

 

<p>The big issues would be EVF lag, shutter lag, AF quality/speed, and performance at ISO 800-1600. I could see the combination of the E-M1 and 50-200 SWD or 150 f2.0 being a viable option for sports, but have concerns about the foregoing, and would like to hear from anyone with personal experience.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Hi All-<br>

I was really excited when I read about the introduction of Four-Thirds format. It seemed to promise the following advantages over "legacy" systems:</p>

<ol>

<li>Designed for digital from the ground up;</li>

<li>Smaller than APS-C, but still "big enough" sensor for high image quality;</li>

<li>more compact lenses and bodies;</li>

<li>lower pricing than comparable "full-frame" and APS-C equipment;</li>

<li>"Open standard" would ensure wide range of third-party lenses.</li>

</ol>

<p>Instead, the state of Four-Thirds appears to be:</p>

<ol>

<li>Olympus is the only manufacturer committed to the format, and even it has only one current SLR model, leaving the format's future viability in question;</li>

<li>Bodies and lenses have no significant advantage in size and weight vs. competing APS-C equipment;</li>

<li>Bodies and lenses have no significant advantage in price over competing APS-C equipment (on the contrary, Olympus stuff often costs more);</li>

<li>Limited selection of glass available;</li>

<li>No clear technical advantages over APS-C equipment.</li>

</ol>

<p>I'm not heavily invested in the format; I just have an E-1 and 14-54. But in view of the above, I'm thinking of switching to a different system before getting more heavily invested in Four-Thirds.<br>

<br>

Anyone else been down this road? Thoughts?</p>

 

<p><strong>What I decided</strong>:<br>

The anti-sale people raised some good points. I decided to sell the M6 TTL body on the big auction site, along with the 90mm Elmarit-M. I'm keeping my 35 Summicron ASPH, CV 50 1.5, and CV 21.<br>

Reasons? Too hard to get film locally, and think that the next shoe to drop will be declining availability of minilab processing. No inclination to do my own darkroom work. Never been completely down with using telephotos on rangefinder; prefer SLR.<br>

OTOH, I can't bear to part with the Summicron, and it and the CV lenses will be very useful to put on a digital body.</p>

<p>Thanks for the ideas.</p>

 

<p>I've had my Leica in a closet for five years. While I plan on using it this evening, I came across these used prices on the net today:<br>

www(dot)antiquecameras(dot)net/leicamlenses(dot)html<br>

I haven't followed Leica pricing in more than five years, so these lens prices just about knocked my eyeballs out! If they are anything close to accurate, I may not be able to afford the opportunity cost of keeping my M6TTL, 35/2 ASPH, and 90/2.8 Elmarit-M.<br>

A few obvious questions:<br>

1. Are these prices generally realistic?<br>

2. If not, where can I get realistic pricing info?<br>

3. Why have the lenses appreciated so much more than the bodies?<br>

4. Any recommendations for the best way to sell, considering both convenience and price?</p>

<p>Thanks so much!</p>

<p>Hi All-<br>

I'm one who believes that the is a specialness to B&W work done with Leica cameras and lenses that nothing else can quite match. Somewhere in the interplay of the big, bright viewfinder, lag-free shutter, and magic lenses, magic is born. I understand that this is just an opinion, but it is one shared by many Leica shooters, and it is they to whom this question is addressed.<br>

I woke up this morning and decided to get my M6TTL out of the closet for the first time in about five years. I knew exactly what I wanted to do: go down to the nearest Walgreens and buy some Ilford XP2 or Kodak T400CN, and take some candids at a party I'm attending tonight. Then I'd have the roll processed on a digital minilab and scanned, leaving a choice between sending any keepers out for traditional optical printing, or producing inkjet B&W prints.<br>

My first stop was Walgreens. Color neg film only. Same result at Meijer and Walmart. Two local camera stores had only traditional B&W emulsions, in limited varieties. I ended up with a roll of "Vivitar 100" which is apparently a B&W film produced in China.<br>

I do have a roll of T400CN which is surely several years out of date.<br>

Should I just shoot color, scan, and desaturate? I imagine that some of the tonal qualities of B&W film can be imparted electronically. I'm just fearful that the final product will be very un-Leicalike. If I shoot the traditional B&W emulsion, and send it out for processing and scanning, will the scans be usable? My understanding is that the C41 films produce much better scans.<br>

The broader question is what the heck to I do with a Leica and four lenses when I can't get my hands on film, and can't afford an M9? For those of you in the same boat, what are you doing to make best use of your equipment these days?</p>

I see that you're new here.

 

Your response tothe original question is not responsive. Furthermore, the implication that I, or other posters, have an intent to violate copyright law is uncalled-for.

 

Of course I save my negatives, but most families, including my own, have boxes full of family photos, for which the negatives are long gone.

 

I'm not trying to run off a new photo.netter, but perhaps you should give your posts a bit more consideration, particularly when such posts consist of sarcastically impugning the motives of others.

I'm considering buying into the E-system. Can anyone give me the

rundown on how these bodies compare? I have never handled an E-1. I

handled an E-300 in a local store, and thought it seemed well-made,

although I was not too impressed with the viewfinder.

I think the new HP six-color printers are very nice for color printing. I don't know how the quality of b+w is, but would not expect good results from a color printer. The display life of the prints is supposedly excellent, per www.wilhelm-research.com .

Yes, 200 is too short. 300 is enough (just). I'm sure 400 would be great, but

one pays a big penalty in weight for xx-400 zooms, except, possibly, the

Tokina 80-400, which might be a valid alternative, if anyone knows anything

about it.

I will be on or near the rail (rather than in the grandstand).

Hi all,

 

I want a rig to take to the horse races to shoot with while I am

with friends, and generally following the action. I have an F3 with

several prime lenses, but this outfit is way too big and heavy for

my purposes.

 

This will be my first AF SLR. My inclination is to go with a N80 and

Nikon 75-300 zoom. Is this a good choice or do I need to look at

getting an N90 or F100? Any other compact zooms I should consider?

 

Thanks.

<<Now that there are people running real Ilford B&W paper through Lightjets...>>

 

 

Who? URLs?

<<Among all other editorial film shooters the F100(AKA"F5 Lite") rules, outselling the Canon Eos3, I am told, by about ten to one.>>

 

 

Why? Reviews of these cameras seem to conclude that they are very comparable, do they not?

I just setup my new Epson 2450 scanner, with Vuescan and Photoshop

Elements 2.0. I am scanning some old color photos that were printed on

textured paper, and printing them on an inkjet.

 

The texture of the original paper is clearly visible on the finished prints. Is

there a fix for this, either in Vuescan or Photoshop Elements?

I just used my new Billingham L2 Alice bag for the first time. It is

a very nice bag. It seems to be about the right size for an M or two,

and a couple oflenses, plus some film. Not sure how it compares with

the other Billingham bag referenced above