d.olson

<p>I have appox. $25k worth of equipment and the insurance cost for repair or replacement value no deductible costs me $90.00 a year. Bodies, glass, lighting and filters. You might want to think about it. Pretty cheap considering.</p>

<p>As Bruce said, it just depends on what you want to do and what whimsey one has. That after all to me is what casual shooting is about. I'll just pick something and shoot it. My 28-70 is pretty much on all the time. It's has great range and excellent qualities. But I also throw on a Hasselblad 110 2 Planar TStar also.<br>

Take a look at what focal length you shoot mostly and pick something in that area. An older 28-105 3.5/4.5 is another good one with a longer spread and a very usable 1:2 macro.<br>

Just like the anything else, ask 10 people you'll get ten different answers. Everybody has their own pets.</p>

<p>Do a search and you will come up with a lot of areas with this information. Basically the correct size of the hole is determined by the distance to the film plane or censor.<br>

I'm at a different location or I could point you to an article.</p>

Sentimental is your sentimental. When I could see that anything I could do in digital surpassed, including B&W printing in the 135 format I sold the bodies off. Keep the glass you like, it's easy to Ai I do my own. When I do shoot film it's with LF. I have a Busch Pressman Model D and a Speed Graphic, 7 lenses mounted and all the accessories. MF never held an interest for me.

 

Basically it's your's to keep or off.

Here's another 16-50 Tokina

I think mine does quite well.<div></div>

FWIW and IMO It's far better to expose as normally as possible. Underexposing at any ISO from what I've seen will lead to more noise than a proper exposure will.

I got one last year which was used in a studio photographing art work. less that 300 actuations for $600.00. You could see at the bottom the tripod impression otherwise just bellybutton lint and flawless.

 

Make sure you get the AC adapter with it.

 

BatteryBarn batteries are great and it is also easy to make a off camera battery pack. Using an old Nikon battery plus the normal charger to charge with I have one about the size of a deck of cards that's 5,000mAh but I use it primarily to power a Nissen 4000GW flash though when I need more light in the field. I don't have any problems working it with any flash or strobe system.

 

D70 RAW files are compressed while in comparison D1X RAWS have tons of information. Lightroom opens them up 10.3 mp automatically and you can do the same in ACR.

 

The images are sublime and easy to work with or if you do your job there is very little PPing necessary. I don't bother shooting jpg so can't comment on that.

 

They are probably the best for IR work if you are into that.

 

Shutters like all pro bodies are good for 300k and cheap to replace.

 

The dissing you hear on the net are from those that either don't know or have never seen the camera. Those that do generally, like me, love them.

 

In short if you don't want the D1X turn me on to it if it is nice I wouldn't mind having another.

Two each his own. The 28-70 is usually on the body and 50% of the shots. Then comes the 70-200 at 30% followed up by the 17-35. All of these lenses are much better than the samples I've tried of 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 at 2.8. For special times the 85 1.4 goes on.

Don't even consider selling it. You have a gem now, the 17-35, 28-70 and the 70-200 are a combination that can't be beat. Digital or film.

Get it, use it, learn it, you will love it. Don't even compare it with the 50mm line or anything else for that matter. It's a different breed of cat altogether.

If I may I'd like to throw in the pot a D1X. I deliberately chose this over a D200 after trying both. The prices are very good and it is a viable upgrade over the D1. File sizes are in keeping and Lightroom opens the RAWs interpolating them automatically. RAW workflow is seemless to updated standards. I use L/R and CS2. Doing ones job and depending on what you want very little PPing is necessary.

The body has a better more user friendly menu system I believe. No need for a cheat sheet.

 

OOPS, Never mind. I should have read the whole thread. You have a D1. With that I know several photographers who use and make money with their D1's. Still wonderful pictures from these oldies.

Pick your focal length,light requirements and budget.

What I had used with very good to excellent results on the D50 I had were.

 

18-70, 70-210, 28-105, 28-70 2.8, 85 1.4, 70-200 2.8. All Nikkors and the Tokina 16-50 2.8.

Don

Don't panic. Mine freaked and geeked too when I got it. I'll bet dollars to donuts it's the battery. Did it come with Nikon batteries? Did you refresh and charge them? A good battery should cure the problem. If they are the Nikon batteries you may get some more life out of them by refreshing 3X but I would still go to BatteryBarn and get theirs. $39.00 shipped a year guarantee and 2400mAh vs. 2000. They work great no issues and they fit and lock in better than the Nikon issue and the end caps are fine.

 

Don't be turning it on and off while during a shoot, this uses up the battery faster. Just let it do it's sleep mode thing as it's an instant wakeup when needed.

 

I've had mine for several months now and am loving it. Fantastic colors, contrast and detail. I shoot only RAW in manual mode so don't know how the other stuff works. But very little PPing is necessary for a straight shot. Some folks say that it under exposes about 1/2 stop. I'm guessing they shoot jpg in one of the program modes. I haven't seen this and my meter is about spot on.

 

I've printed 13X19 with great results on my R1800 and would hesitate to go bigger.

 

Good luck,

Don

Can it work? Yes. Why would be another question. Tripod and light meter sure. Or you could focus via distance to subject and DOF and remember your exposure data. Kind of like shooting a 4x5 only the big camera has a better focusing screen.

Like Mr. Freeman says, it costs nothing, give it a whirl.:-)

 

Don

Have: 28-105, 85 1.4, 70-200 2.8 VR

 

Next: 17-35 2.8 and 28-70 2.8

 

This will cover my needs nicely.

Don

Peter, You are right. I apologize to all especially Anthony.

 

Don

Anthony, if these are your (poster child) shots declaring on how sharp they are without using a filter. Sorry, but what I'm seeing is not all that good. There is no real sharpness to them and I'm not seeing the big deal on IQ.

 

This, however is an example that mirrors an experience of mine.

http://www.planetneil.com/faq/filters.html

 

Not all of us are (sit on our butts) artsie fartsie photographer whanabies. Some of us actually get into the action. Out on the ice shooting figure skaters or on the track shooting off road GP scrambles one would be nuts not to have some protection on their glass.

 

Using hi end hoya filters and with my 20/15 eyesight I see no discernible differences when taking back to back pictures, filter on/filter off. I doubt you could either especially since you can't give any qualitative reasoning.

 

My own experience was shooting an off road scrambles. I was tracking a rider who just went past me and his tire flipped a rock hitting the front on my 70-200 2.8 VR. This was at the beginning of the days racing. In about 1.5 minutes I replaced the shattered filter, there was NO damage at all to the lens's front element, and I was able to continue shooting the rest of the day. If I didn't have the filter in place I would have been dead in the water and missing out on $1,700.00 in on site CD sales and another $700.00 in after event print sales. Plus I would have been without the use of this lens and the revenue it generates for weeks while under repair.

 

ANY time you touch the front element you ARE causing it harm. Period. It doesn't matter what you clean it with or the coatings it has.

 

Some, like me, just don't buy the smoke you're blowing with your unsupported busy theory's.

 

As my own experience goes back to the 1950's, yes, I'm an OF, and my Dad made a very good living as a professional photographer for his family from the 1930's until retirement in the 1970's some, like me, just don't buy the smoke you're blowing with your unsupported busy theory's. If you are going to make broad statements, at least support them with solid evidence.

 

Don<div></div>

I too have a Viv 283 but it measures 355 volts consistently. I wouldn't put that on an old 35. More modern flashes can be had for very little money. Use the old ones for off camera triggered with a slave, they work fine in that mode. I also use a Speedotron 2400 but trigger that with a wireless remote triggering at 6 volts.

 

I would not trust the readings from any other source but what the actual readings were from that flash.

 

The question comes to mind. Would you put a $10.00 saddle on a $10,000.00 horse?

 

Don

I think you'll find that any time spent with the 70-300 will be waisted effort and I personally wouldn't bother dragging it along. You seem obsessed with the notion that you can't take candids without it. IMO and experience this is a false notion. It's how you blend in, not what you shoot with.

You should see some of the hundreds of candids my father took with his Busch Pressman D 4X5. talk about an in your face camera.

 

Don't be afraid to really crank up the ISO. Forget about someone else's limitations. You can get a much faster shutter speed and/or not so shallow a DOF. Your shots will be sharper and any noise is easy to correct if necessary. Under exposure is death to an image in a low light situation. I'd rather have a little noise and a sharp image to deal with than a underexposed mess.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Don

Adding to that, using a mono-pod helps too.

Don

I shoot singles and pairs figure skaters where not flash is permitted. If the focal length works an 85 1.4 is hard to beat. A 70-200 2.8 VR will work too depending on the light and distance. Don't be afraid to crank up the ISO on your D50. This will allow you a faster shutter speed, your shots will be sharper and any noise is easy to correct. In this situation it's way better not to under expose.

 

Good luck, Don

I found this article (very long and detailed) to be very informative. Classic stuff.

 

http://groups.msn.com/Asktheoleproaboutphotography/joezeltsman.msnw

I had the same thoughts as you, but I really didn't find anything suitable. So I have just left the supplied hood on and now isn't an issue for me. In fact, I've gotten to like the added protection it affords.

 

Don

I wouldn't even try to talk you out of it as I'd be lying. I've had mine for a month now and only have had a chance to use it for real once at an off road bike scrambles. Carrying it wasn't any hardship at all. Yes, it is very visible and a funny thing is in many of the captures of the riders two' off the ground over a jump you can see their eyes looking at me.

 

Lots of arguments whether or not VR is necessary. But the one thing is that it's the only lens that pulls it and puts it all together in one package and there is no denying it's quality in any respect.

 

I'm very happy with it and for me it's worth every penny.

 

Don