efusco

Contrary to Roger's technique, I put the filter on then meter normally. If you meter first your exposure will be for the entire scene, adding th ND grad filter will darken ~1/2 the scene by a full 2-3 stops depending on what filter you use and this will signficantly affect the exposure.

 

To Roger's credit, if you spot meter the darker portion of the scene before puting the filter on, lock that exposure and select a ND grad filter to compensate for the (now over exposed) brigher portion of the scene then your exposure should be quite accurate.

--evan

sorry, <b>Azrul</b>

RJ,

With all due respect to Arzul, the 3DCMM is very good, but it can't think. I just got back from a week long trip. 9 rolls of film, probably 95% shot with 3DCMM, at least 15-20 shots that would have been lost if not for bracketing or realizing that I needed to spot meter and/or use a ND grad filter. Fortunately, after one quick shot I realized that the situation would call for adjustment and did so, but a few shots were lost b/c I relied on the meter exclusively.

 

For example, bright sky, shadowed foreground each occupying about 50% of the frame. Sure, the sky was perfectly exposed, but the foreground with my main subject of interest was unusably under exposed. Is that a failure of the matrix meter? I don't think so, it was a failure of the photographer to recognize and address the limitations of my film,camera, and light meter.

Bob,

I think ee is refering to the notifications supposedly sent when we post a queary. It sends to the forum administrator (who is usually busy and has disabled notification), and then to a smattering of other people depending on the forum. This happens with old questions as well as brand new ones.

--evan

Glazer's is a good reliable place to rent from. They're efficient with shipping if you need that service. From me they required a copy of both sides of my credit card and a copy of my drivers license before renting an $11,000 600mm f/4 AFS lens--in case it didn't make it home again.

--evan

Gerald is right...the 'riot' you specify will not be a task, even in dim light, for either AF system. The way you put the question made it seem like it would be something difficult (butterflies in the dark or something).

--evan

Check out Scott Smith's <a href="http://www.lightingmagic.com" target="_blank">Lighting Magic<a/> Web site. Most of his images link to a lighting diagram and description of how the image was made. Buy his Basic Studio Lighting book....let me repeat that...buy the book. It will answer 99% of all the questions you might have in the first 6 months of shooting and many questions after that. Scott is very personable and dedicated to helping people learn studio photography (esp. those who buy his books). He'll even look at your photos and tell you what you need to do to improve them and answer questions on the phone. It's a very well spent $40 and he'll answer your questions about lights.

 

<p>BTW, if you're in a rush look around for some used Novatrons.. you don't need big powerful lights, a basic 3 light kit will be plenty to get you started and you can always add more later when you need it.

Raymond,

A star filter (or star cross filter) causes points of light to spread out across the image....you've seen the christmas photos where the lines from the candles go all the way across the image...that was a star filter. You can get them with 4, 6, or 8 lines. My point was that they have very limited utility, cute effect to use once in a while, but compared to the cost of the filter not really worth it...like most special effect filters.

Guess I fall into the "rich geek" category. For me photography is my primary escape. Passion. Hobby. It is a challenge for me to try to become as good a photographer as possible. I spent many years shooting inferior/consumer grade cameras and equipment and was perfectly satisfied with it...UNTIL I started to become a good enough photographer to realize the limitations of the gear I was using and that that was what wass limiting my advancement.

 

I was fortunate to recieve a large sign-up bonus with my first job after residency and purchased an F5 and 2 professional f2.8 zoom ED Nikkor lenses. That was about 5-6 years ago and they still compromise the core of my photo equipment. Before that I had an FM2n--still got it. I've added 2 other f2.8 lenses as my needs have grown and budget allowed over the years as well as a good tripod and head and various other 'stuff' to tweek out my camera bag.

 

As someone mentioned, it all depends on one's priorities. I don't, yet, have a Pro DSLR...not for lack of wanting one, but because finances don't allow me, even as a "rich doctor" to just toss the AMEX on the counter at the local camera shot to grab a D100 without consideration of the impact. I COULD go out and get one today...I have the available money, but I could NOT afford to replace it when the D2x that I really really want and expect would meet my demanding standards (where the D100 won't) comes on the market. So I wait, bide my time, and save my pennies. I won't buy the 70-200VR/AFS to replace my "old" 80-200/2.8 lens, b/c that would mean no D2x. I'll get all the stuff I want, eventually. I shoot a little for money on the side to defray a tiny bit of the cost, but it doesn't have much impact. But it boils down to being a passion. If I could have everything I want I'd also own an airplane--I'm a pilot, and fly all the time. I'd own the latest in dive computers and scuba gear--I'm a diver too, but I settle for 'out dated' used stuff b/c I'm not as passionate. I settle for my 6 year old Pentium II computer b/c it still does what I need it for with few limitations even though that P4 hyperthreading and dual CPU and monster HDs make me drool...but they don't make e-mail or internet forums work any better.

 

In other words, I do sacrifice for my passion and the pursuit of perfection in photography--and don't regret a penny spent (except maybe for that star filter--what was I thinking?!)

How long of a vacation, what location/weather do you expect? I've traveled all over the world. I keep my film in a clear ziplock bag for trips up to about 4 weeks. A cooler, if you have the luxury of space and weight, is a nice idea if you're in a particularly hot environment, but really is overkill with today's stable films in most situations.

 

It's a good idea to process slide film (or print film for that matter) as soon as possible after exposed, but it doesn't have to be done immediately and waiting until the end of a 1-2 month trip isn't unreasonable and you won't notice any significant change.

Clearly you've had a terrible experience and probably your warning is legitimate. You also will likely never see your slides. BUT, I don't see that you've tried to call them by phone in your post....why not do that, you get someone on the phone, don't let them off until you have a specific name, deadline by which they'll reach you with information, etc. If they can't come through you, at least, deserve reimbursement for your film cost (not insignificant with EIR) and an apology and probably free processing on your next 2 rolls.

 

I love e-mail, but as a means of conflict/dispute resolution it sucks. A registered delivery confirmation letter to the Owner/manager of the operation with CC to the BBB of the area and the CEO of the BOD (if there is one) are also effective.

 

I'd start with the phone call and at least find out if and when they got your film, what might have happened to it, did they ship to a wrong address and it got returned and they didn't know what to do with it, did they damage it and just were afraid to contact you? Anyway, once there's a human on the phone something in the way of answers will be forthcoming.

 

BTW, their phone number is:

303 364 6444

Well...again Christy, what is your current lens NOT doing for you? For a candids lens as you describe there are few lenses out there with as good a quality combination of optics and versatility as your current lens (this will be debated, but it is a very good versatile candids/travel/multi-purpose lens).

 

Kid portraits are a different issue...if you're in a studio (you don't say) or shooting often in low light then a faster lens (larger maximum aperture) AFS(for lighting fast AF to catch those kiddos on the move) Nikon lens is a very good idea. Still, I'd tend to stick with a zoom for that purpose b/c being able to stay still and zoom in and out when shooting is important b/c if YOU start moving you can interfere with the shot by distracting the kids. I you mostly shoot in good light or outdoors and aren't currently having any problems with AF speed then I ask again...what is this lens NOT letting you do--what problem are you trying to overcome in your search for a new lens...that issue is still not clear to me at all and any advice given will be useless until that point is understood.

Christy,

Your lens desire as described is pretty dang vague, and the lens you already have is pretty darn good. Why, exactly, do you want a new lens. Is there some problem you're having with the current one or are you finding that it isn't meeting your needs in some way? You mention portrait lens...why? What do you shoot? What kinds of portraits. What functionality are you wanting to add.

 

Or do you just have money burning a whole in your pocket and want a new lens to play with. In your situation I, personally, would add a wide angle (not for portraits of course) with a longer telephoto as an alternative if I had something coming up that the tele would be more useful for. I see no point in duplicating a focal length you already have covered with an optically good lens.

This is a fact of life/physics. Film or a digital sensor can only capture a certain range of light (latitude). When you have a dramatic difference in the brightness of one part of a scene as compared to another area something will always be over or under exposed. In the samples you gave most people would opt to spot meter the football players and allow the sky to be over exposed, or even crop out the sky completely to avoid the distraction.

 

There are some work arounds...for landscapes/scenics one can employ a Neutral density graduated filter which basicly blocks part of the light from the sky while allowing all the light available from the darker part of the scene to get the balance of light within the scene close enough for your capture device to record them.

 

You can simulate the effect, to a limited degree, by using the filters available in Photoshop by masking the sky and lightening the foreground. Just remember, it won't look perfect b/c you havent captured all the information in the original scene, but it will help and may make the images printable for daily use.

I'd guess it will be several years more, but I too doubt that we've seen the end of the pro-line film SLR from Nikon (I accept that I could be wrong, but I don't think so). What will the F6 have? Probably the focus points and vertical grip command and sub-command dials like the D2h has. Probably a more advanced AF system and flash and metering system. Maybe (pure speculation) a hybrid digital/film interface allowing preview of the image with histogram while still recording the final image to film--wouldn't that be slick! Maybe some weight and bulk reduction. Maybe many of the features currently built into the optional back will be integrated into the main body. Maybe they'll allow you to program the maximum aperture for non-CPU lenses so that the matrix metering will work with those lenses as they've done with the D2h.

 

They'd probably have to think of and add something pretty siginificant (like the hybrid suggestion above) to convince a large number of people who currently own/use/love the F5 to switch over to the F6, but they may just build the F6 as a moderate upgrade and phase out the F5 to carry on the line.

 

I guess I'm just not a doomsday naysayer on either front (no more film and there's no improvement to be made). I do believe the proline film cameras will be a much smaller, and likely significantly more expensive market in the future due to lower demand and the shift of energy and attention toward digital.

I'm with Ian, those are very odd choices to have things narrowed down to. Why don't you give us your budget (camera and lens(es), and tripod (essential for night photos), what you think you need as far as features and, most importantly, why you think you need those features.

 

Also, tell us how/why you chose the cameras you did. I bet we can either help you choose b/w those two or offer better suggestions. The FM-10 is kind of a Nikon joke IMO, I don't know diddly about the OM you mentioned.

--evan

Depends on your typical use. AF will be better/faster for sure--most say even with the AFS it's better though I haven't personally compared.

 

Regarding the 'extra features'--you're really looking at a professional camera here. If you just do snap shots then the extra feature set may go unused, but I use mine (actually an F5, but pretty comparable). Your milage may vary. Look at a spec sheet, compare it to the specs for the N80, and decide if there are enough features you'd use often enough vs the price to justify it.

 

In my experience, you KNOW when you've outgrown a camera--you find the limitations without looking for them, then you find the tool (camera) that will get you over those limitations. Others have, for one reason or another, purchased a camera without a realized need and then decided the decision was a good one b/c they started using features they didn't previously have--I think that's rare. More often than not people with pleny of money buy a camera with a high price tag and lots of features then they put the thing in "P" mode and go shoot thinking their pictures will be better b/c the camera cost more--doesn't work.

Bah, I disagree with Gerald and Jim... You have an F5, it's a great camera, it will perform great with the proper care and batteries, use it. I own and used an FM2 in Alaska too, but the convenience of the F5 when your fingers are cold and you're trying to readjust the aperture and shutter speed on the mechanical FM2 is a pain. Sure I carried it as a back-up and yea I'd probably leave the F5 at home at 40 below zero, but it should work fine.

 

<p>Get an extra battery holder and keep it inside your coat so it will stay warm. If your batteries freeze-up you can just pop the warm one in and put the cold one inside your coat. The other thing to do is keep the <b><i>body</b></i> of the F5 inside your coat...leave the lens sticking out the zipper or it will get condensation that will freeze and then you're in big trouble trying to get that off. Nikon also makes a battery pack that has a wire that connects to the F5 battery slot. You keep the battery pack inside your coat so it stays warm while the F5 remains in the cold with no batteries. I think it's pretty expensive and would only make sense if you really are serious about doing cold weather shooting a lot.

 

Don't listen to the nay sayers, the F5 will perform admirably in the deep cold. Not that I'd discourage an FM2 back-up, it has lots of uses (do an archive search, someone asked about back up bodies and what one does with them), but you needed use the cold as an excuse for getting one.

First, the wind chill is not a factor for mechanical devices (or people for that matter except for body parts directly exposed to the wind). Second, the advice above is good. I lived in Alaska for 3 years, usually I'd use the NiMH battery pack which performed well to -20F (brief exposure times of <2 hours). Lithiums were my back-up and performed quite admirably. Forget Alkaline except for cheap back-ups.

Yea, sure does!! Where'd you find that, are there others?

Hans, ignore the printer resolution numbers. They amount to little more than sales hype. The way the ink is layed down, the dot size, the software and hardware controlling the way the ink is put down are all much more important factors. Setting your image at 240-360 dpi will give you the best resolution you need. I know, it's hard to swallow, but believe it.

I agree with much of the above, you are going to have a huge gap in your range jumping from 35mm (or 24mm) to 80mm...really no "normal" range lens at all in there.

 

<p>How badly do you want/need the ultra-wide angle? I need it, I use it a lot for what <b>I</b> do. But I have no idea if it will suit what you want or plan to do. There are many photogs who've gotten by very well with going only as wide as 24mm.

 

<p>I think you need to figure out what your real needs are yourself. Try to avoid the gear-greed that we all get from time to time. If a $1400 ultra-wide angle zoom is going to sit unused or rarely used then it was a waste. If you're going to miss shots on a regular basis for lack of the extra 17-23mm range, then you'd better look at the 17-35 lens.

 

<p>What would I personally do in your case? I'd buy a 28-70 or 35-70 zoom to fill the middle range. Alternatively and much less expensively the 50/1.8 is a great deal if you don't mind loosing a bit of zoom in the middle. Then you could sell the 24, get the 17-35 and have one hell of a nice fast set-up with a good range.

I think it's a bit hard to predict what exactly will be done with the D200 based on the D2h. A better question would be what differences there will be in the D2x based on what's been done with the "H".

 

I personally expect/want:

1)I WANT full frame 8-10 (would mind 12)MP sensor. I expect a 1.5x sensor with 8-10 MP.

2)ISO of 50 & 100. I don't know if they'll keep the high end--probably not unless they go to full frame due to noise issues.

3)3-4 fps with ~ 15 image buffer.

4)+/- on the wireless. Would like to see the GPS in it.

5)I'd like to see it have 16-bits and ProphotoRGB colorspace--that probably won't happen.

 

Ok, that would be a camera I'd pay $3500-4000 for.

Julio,

Thanks for the reasoned response, certainly a better way to forward your valid opinion than your first post. I'll briefly respond to a few points you bring up. I think it's clear that this isn't everything everyone would have hoped for, but do feel it will be perfect for certain PJ and sports uses.

 

<p><i>A camera that would represent a jump big enough to warrant expending several grand would do better than 4MP. With such meager increments as Nikon offers in the D2H users would need a slew of cameras, one each for every slightly different application.</i>

 

<p>At a price point below the 1D (obviously it's direct competitor) and to achieve the buffer capacity, frame rate and quality I suspect the 4MP was a compromise and also suspect that a lot of thought went into picking that resolution. You look at it as an incremental improvement, but I wonder if the "H" series cameras might stay in the 4MP range for a long time with improvements focused in other areas. If it's adequate to do the job and compromises would have had to be made to have a higher resolution then it's the best resolution for the tool. Puting a 16 pound head on a claw hammer works against the tool's purpose, likewise, puting a claw on a 16 lb sledge isn't helpful either. I won't begrudge you the fact that 6MP would have been nice to see, but would the PJs begin complaining that the buffer capacity is only 25 frames--3 seconds of 8fps shooting...or maybe the frame rate couldn't be as high. The designs are a matter of balancing features and quality and I think this product seems to have been made wisely within the apparent restrictions.

 

<p><i>The flash sync is functionally not a big deal but it only means that Nikon could again not deliver a technical advancement. Nikon is either not spending enough in research or its marketers have become complacent knowing that there is a loyal following out there that will buy whatever Nikon dishes out.</i>

 

<p>I suppose one could interpret it that way. And perhaps it's true, they couldn't get the shutter lag fast enough or the black-out short enough with an electronic shutter. I do not know enough about the technical aspect of digital cameras to make as bold a statement as you do one way or the other on the technical over or under achievments of this camera. I don't think working pros care that much about the name on the camera, they want a tool to do their job with. If sales suck for the D2h and sky rocket for the 1D then we'll know something...or if they all just keep shooting with their D1h.

 

<p><i>Evan, matrix metering and all that stuff is old hat and as for the F5 it already has matrix metering and tons of features; The fact that it took Nikon so long to build these same features in a digicam is no compliment to its maker. Yes additional features are cute but do they justify such a big additional investment?.</i>

 

<p>We apparently don't see eye to eye on this at all. I think there are a huge number of improvements and advancements in SLR features if not in digital technology to make this camera very appealing. You put the SLR features of this camera on a film body and I'm going to give serious consideration to upgrading from my F5...not everyone would, but I'm enchanted enough with the AF improvements, command and subcommand dials on the vertical grip and backward lens compatibility alone to consider it.

 

<p><i>Evan, on purely practical terms I do agree with you that the D2H will be a very usable tool for one purpose: PJ. That said, does it offer enough to warrant a big expense to someone that already has a D1H or a D1X and has a wider range of uses for it? that is the question.</i>

 

<p>That's a pretty personal issue. I think it would for me if I were a PJ or sports guy. It darn near meets my needs/desires as it and I'm not a PJ or sports guy! I think the price is very reasonable for the product.

 

<p><i>My feel is that Nikon's marketing direction is off track as when for example they launched new lenses designed for the small sensors (that was easy) instead of focusing their research on larger sensors as Canon did, -that is more difficult. Users who buy these half-measure lenses will in the not too distant future change them for the real thing at big expense. The reality is that in digital Nikon has been underwhelming. They and appear stuck with small incrementals. Let us hope they have something afoot to remedy the problem. Users need the competition.</i>

 

<p>These points may or may not be valid. I think time will tell. What if they felt that the sensor size vs noise/resolution/etc. issue was a non-issue or would become a non-issue (in otherwords that small sensors could be produced that had as high a resolution as a full frame (within reason) without loss of quality. And at the same time realized that trying to make a FF sensor on the current F-mount would always have problems with chromatic aberation and light fall-off. The compromise here may (I'm completely speculation for illustrative purposes) have been between changing the mount completely to make it big enough to avoid the problems of FF or to stick with the F-mount and smaller sensor and work the system around that. How much noise would we be hearing if they tried to change from F-mounts? I can't even imagine. Again, I'm not a technical guy, I believe compromises must be made...I be even Canon has had to once or twice. The ones so far, by Nikon, are within reason in my opinion.

 

<p>So much for my brief response. I've been considering starting a thread to get input about people's perfect D2x--basing it on the body features of the D2h and what you'd want to see in the "X" body to make it worth while...say at $4000 list. I want ISO 50 & 100, maybe dropping the highest end if need be, but they should be able to maintain the range. I want 8-10 MP. I'd like Full Frame, but have accepted that it isn't likely to happen unless Nikon is holding some more sensor 'cards' close to their chest. I'd take a frame rate of 4 fps and buffer capacity around 15 images. Be nice if the GPS was in there. wireless...give or take, don't really care and probably wouldn't by the adapter. I'd like ProphotoRGB color space and maybe 16 bits.

 

<p>What would make it worth that to you (or anyone else).

Geez Julio...what a troll statement that is.

Too little of what? 4MP isn't enough for your PJ needs? Or is it the 1/250th flash sync (a legitimate step backward from the D1h). Probably the only 2 legitimate complaints one could have about the camera. If you need more than 4MP then you probably need to wait on the D2x.

 

Yes, I was frustrated too that the newest was a long time coming, but this is a truely innovative, well thought out well designed full featured pro camera. There are more features than my F5 has even with the Multi-function back (those features are built into the camera now). If you already made the leap to Canon then I can understand some sour grapes, but don't bash the camera itself, it's a fine fine tool that will more than satisfy the needs of most PJs.

 

BTW, Thom Hogan seems all excited about the intervalometer--is that just the battery status or something else I should know about?