iancoxleigh

And to add to what Larry said, the brightness of the viewfinder is also going to depend on the maximum aperture of the lens attached. Make sure you look at each camera with an equally fast/open maximum-aperture lens.

 

But, really there is a lot, lot more differentiating these cameras! Read a few reviews.

I was recently in a similar position as your son. I would really consider buying a used FM2n or (if you have the money and don't mind loosing out on weight and flash-sync) a FM3a instead of the FM10.

 

Have a look at Thom Hogan's comments here: http://www.bythom.com/Bodies.htm

and

http://www.bythom.com/fm2n.htm .

 

On Ebay, the FM2n often undersells the FM-10 so keep an eye out!

"what is the difference between the 200 mm Micro and a straight (or zoom 200) telephoto lense in terms of image size?"

 

That all depends on the minimum focusing distance of your 200mm telephoto lens. adorama.com provides the maximum magnifcation figure for most of the lenses they sell. For example the Nikon 300 f/4 goes to 1:3.7, the Nikon 70-300mm zoom 1:3.9, and the Nikon 80-400mm VR 1:4.8. In the 200mm range, the 70-200mm f/2.8 will go to 1:5.6, and the $4000, 6.4 lb., 200mm f/2 VR will only give you 1:8.1!

 

So you see, all these zooms and the 200 and 300mm primes won't give you as great a magnification as the 60mm micro. But, they will give you their maximum from much further away. If you want 1:1 with a greater working distance, the 200mm micro will get you to 1:1 at 19.4 inches from the subect.

 

I hope that helps,

 

Ian

I just bought the Nikon 77mm Circ. Pol. II (thin) at Vistek in Toronto. I bought it for use of my 12-24mm Tokina. It was a whopping $189.00 CDN -- but, I had a trade in and a return. Just adding this for anyone reading this in the same position as the OP.

 

P.S. I want that right angle viewfinder.

I am a complete amateur so take everything I say with a heaping tablespoon of salt.

 

1. I agree with the Bill (the last poster) that the woman walking into the frame in the guitar-shop photo is distracting and has to go. I don't mind the rope with the shoes though.

 

2. My main critique is that I'm not sure that you need all three of the in-focus close with out-of-focus background shots from the decorative section. They all display roughly the same technique and are similar in their tone and conveyed meaning. Having all three feels a little bit like padding a resume. Pick one of these only.

 

I like number 2198 -- the Brown wall with the architrave. I would choose it because the foreground has more depth and varied tone than the others. I also feel that the two elements relate and that the background is as much a part of finished image as the foreground.

 

I don't like the one with the Flavian Amphitheatre because the background is too recognizable as the Colosseum and I don't like the other gray one as much because I don't feel the foreground and background relate to one another strongly and I think the background is thrown a little too much out of focus heightening that separation between zones.

Alright, I feel like an moron! In my defense, none of the dozen or so lenses I've used in my short photographic life (since I was 18, 6 years ago, and starting with a manual used 1970s Pentax with a normal and TC) have had this feature. But, I'm sure the Tokina's manual would have told be about this somewhere! Anyways . . .

 

Thanks all. Merry Christmas.

I agree with the above posting entirely and want to add that you should consider renting a lens as an option. Most large camera store will rent you what you need if you know that you'll only use a long tele on these rare occasions.

I just got my 12-24 Tokina in the mail today (well it came earlier but I was

sort of saving it for myself as a Christmas present).

 

It has an oddity that I am unsure as to whether it is a defect or not. When I

turn the focusing ring manually the small display doesn't move and doesn't show

that it has changed its focusing point (but, it does change its focus). This a

little unnerving and certainly odd -- but, maybe not detrimental as I don't

usually try and guess whether I'm in focus by looking at that display (except

occasionally when shooting stars and I have the camera pointed up and the view

is hard to use).

 

The focus display does change and display correctly when I use AF and don't

touch the ring. So is it an error? Would you return it?

I'm going to buy a monopod. I am fairly certain that I want the Bogen-Manfrotto

679B -- its fairly light, good and tall, and holds up to 10 kg.

 

Now, what head should I attach to this? I don't have a decent tripod so I don't

have any heads lying around to use or try. I don't think I want a ball head --

that seems finnicky on a monopod. Maybe I just want a quick-release mechanism

and the fitting/plate that attaches to a camera? Can you buy just those? Any

brand recommendations or advice on what to look for?

 

I will be shooting on a D80 and I expect the heaviest and biggest set-up I will

be using will be the Nikon 300mm F/4 with a TC-14E or TC-17E. Anything more I

will have to find and carry a tripod. I already know I will need a new collar

due to the flimsy collar on the new 300 F/4.

 

Thanks in advance.

In midday light I like to use an 81A to bring down the harshness in the light and maybe underexpose by 1/3 to 2/3rd of a stop.

 

But, its a very nice photo. Don't beat yourself up over it. I've got many, many worse shots of butterflies in my files.

If you really want to blow your photos up the size of your house (to crop in on smaller objects) you want to shoot on slide film and have the film scanned to work on it. Even with a relatively cheap scanner you can get about 250 megapixels of data from the scan to work with.

 

If 'the size of a house' includes at least a little hyperbole and you really only need to go as large as 11x17 or maybe 3 by 4 feet (before you start cropping down) -- then a digital camera with more megapixels might be good enough. But, a decent AF film camera will also be a lot cheaper.

 

Also, you might want to consider a cheap film camera from Canon and mount the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo Manual Focus Telephoto Lens - USA. The lens is under $900 and you can get a MF film body to hold it for way less than $400. The D200 is $1300. This lens from Canon goes up to 5 times life size.

I've got about 600 shots on my D80 camera the first charge. I use JPEG Normal (test this against FINE before you automatically use it -- I can't see reasonable difference), auto review is always ON and often used thoroughly. I used flash for about half of those so I expect much higher numbers for future charges. One thing I noticed on other cameras was that use of AF in low light where it has to struggle to find correct exposure sucks up the batteries very, very quickly. If I shoot in very low light I always give the AF help by starting it in the proximity of focused and if it still struggles, I switch to MF.

 

VR was on for all shots.

After every shot I look at the LCD and then use the exposure compensation function to adjust. I don't use bracketing per se. But, I do often take multiple shots at various exposure levels.

 

I find I want adjustments about 70% of the time. But, I can't say for sure how many more times I end up using what was originally the auto-level suggested by the camera -- probably 50% of those 70% of times.

I agree with David above. Don't always assume you want maximum polarization. A little polarization over water or sky can make an impact. Too much and you get cheap Greek-Island-postcard images.

 

Also, it really is what you see is what you get. But, you'll want to be careful still -- intense effects can look a whole lot better through the viewfinder than on the film due to the small viewing area.

 

Take the polarizer on and off and decide for each shot.

Re megapixels. I'd take the SD800 over the 900 or the Leica. 10 vs. 7 mp isn't really that big a deal. A sharp original image is much more important and the SD900 and Leica don't have IS. Take the SD800 -- 28mm wide, IS, compact, and Canon experience with P&S digital.

 

I don't always like Ken Rockwell and often think of him as an excessively oppinionated bugger. But, his opinion on the SD800 is right on. See: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/sd800.htm and his comments in his Holiday gift guide here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2006-camera-guide.htm .

Well, thanks for all your answers. There seems to be a fairly clear consensus that the 300mm f/4 is the way to go until I have enough funds for a good quality longer lens. If the Tamron was a little wider than f/6.3 at 500 I'd give it another look. But, as things stand, I think my mind is made up. Now, I just have to decide what working distance and focal length I want for a macro.

Hi all,

 

I am looking for some input on what lens to buy for birding and other nature

photography. For the moment this will likely be my only telephoto.

 

I currently have a D80 and a Nikon 18-200 VR. I also have a Tokina 12-24. I will

be buying a dedicated macro lens sometime this year and may want a teleconverter

(or two) for use with it. I don't expect to exceed 4 lenses for sometime after

that.

 

I currently have a really crappy tripod that I bought when I was 15 (I'm now

24). I am buying a monopod and head (not sure which yet). I go camping for about

a week each year and go for day trips on other occasions. I bring a 1450 pelican

case to the main site (or left in the car) and carry either a small side bag or

just the camera and a spare lens in my pocket. I will begin carrying a monopod.

I doubt I would start carrying a tripod even if I invest in a better one (which

I will, sometime, since Night/Basic Stellar Photography is another passion of mine).

 

I don't hike huge distances, but weight is certainly a consideration.

 

In the past (with a bad -- stiff zoom, slow AF, not too sharp -- Sigma 70-300 on

my old pentax) I have tried to get (and often missed) the following sorts of

shots: loons on a lake -- sometimes landing or taking off, perched birds from

around 60-100 feet, hawks on wires or in low flight. I also like to photograph

butterflies and other insects (e.g. anisoptera) -- but, that's probably

something I will be considering in buying my macro.

 

I have principally been considering the following: Nikon 300mm AF-S F/4 with use

of TC-14E and Nikon 80-400mm AF VR. I have also looked at: Sigma 170-500mm

f/5-6.3, 50-500mm f/4-6.3, and Tamron 200-500mm f/5-6.3. I have some concerns

about each of these options. But, I think they are the best available choices.

Any other suggestions are welcome.