mlg28

<p>But to answer the question, the math is straightforward: if the exposure is T seconds at f/3.5, it'll be T * (2.8/3.5)^2 at f/2.8<br>

So if you had a 10 sec exposure at f/3.5,you'd have a 6.4 sec exposure at f/2.8 , all else being equal (i.e. no change in ISO, no reciprocity, no change in scene brightness.)<br>

<br />Cheers,<br />Martin </p>

<p>When I shot my daughter's indoor basketball games with a D200, I found the following:</p>

<ul>

<li>A 50 mm f/1.8D focused fast enough</li>

<li>If it focused on the wrong thing, it was my fault, not the lenses...bad setting, bad aiming, bad timing</li>

<li>85 mm f/1.8D was about as short as I could stand...very rarely was the action close enough to me to enable a wider lens</li>

<li>Occasionally, I shot a 50 mm on a film camera. i.e. equivalent to DX 35 mm. Definitely too wide for my taste. Your vision may vary, of course...but I wanted tighter, more distant images.</li>

<li>ISO 1600 was the practical minimum for descent shutter speeds with f/1.8</li>

<li>Therefore, my subsequent switch to a 80-200 f/2.8 was ill-advised...not enough light for that</li>

</ul>

<p>The D300 should give you at least one more stop of usable ISO compared to my D200. That means that if your venues are lit about the same as mine (typical school gymnasium) then f/2.8 should work, and your range of lenses gets bigger.</p>

 

Could be...I started shooting film in it almost immediately, and it works with film in it. I'll try again, and RTFM.n thanks

for your post.

I just bought an ETRs, my first MF camera. Until I put film in it, the shutter would not fire. The multiple exposure lever

did not help.

FE2

 

Light, tough, cheap as dirt nowadays.

<p>I've been using a D200 and SB-800 for years, but I seldom travel with the SB-800. It's pretty big and heavy, almost like carrying a 2nd camera body or another lens. However, I agree with the other responses: it's a great capability. The ability to stand it in a corner of a room, aim it at the ceiling, and flood the room with good light is wonderful. A shelf or cabinet works great for that.<br>

I haven't used the more modern Nikon flashes, but agree that the user interface on the SB-800 is awful. It's worth it, though.<br>

Have fun,<br>

Martin</p>

Another point of view...within the last 30 days, I visited B&H Photo in person, and bought some Plus-X. Also, I

scanned the first roll of film I ever developed myself...Plus-X, in 1977. Still available! So perhaps we should delight in

the continuing availability of any film, and any chemicals, in this digital age. Perhaps we should rejoice in the almost

free availability of film cameras that were once totally unaffordable. Medium format cameras that I would never have

considered buying when they were new are now less than a good digital point-and-shoot.

 

Things are getting better in my world, not worse. Guys...shoot more, get better at it, be happy.

White LEDs are usually made by allowing an ultraviolet LED to cause another substance to fluoresce and give off white

light. Fluorescent tubes work the same way...the mercury vapor gives off UV light which causes the white coating to

fluoresce. I don't think white LEDS keep emitting light after they're shut off, though.

Today, my high school classmates and I were enjoying several dozen photos taken in 1978. Had we had digital

cameras back then, these photos would today reside on 8" floppy disks. Anybody have one of those?

 

Film will work for as long as we have eyes.

<p>Works great on my D200 and F100. I shoot gliders and airplanes on short final (i.e. range is changing rapidly) and teenagers playing soccer. If the AF is too slow for those applications, please don't anybody tell me...it seems to work fast enough.<br>

I do wish it shared 77 mm filters with my 80-200 mm f/2.8, but I bought the 300 mm f/4 used for $550, and that's my only complaint, so I'm happy with this lens.</p>

Very enjoyable,as always. Happy New Year!

Subbarayan,

 

I very much enjoy seeing your town in your photos, along with your narration. Where are these taken?

 

Thanks,

Martin

<p>From the title, I was afraid you were seeking advice on how to upgrade your <em>girlfriend</em>...which I really didn't feel qualified to comment on :)<br>

I agree with the suggestion of the D7000 as an excellent step up, but honestly, it's a lot of money to buy "on spec." I'd go with her to a camera store and let her decide if the weight and size are acceptable. Only she can tell.<br>

To me, the most important difference is the greater ease of changing image parameters on the higher-end Nikons...more dedicated buttons, a control wheel under the index finger, etc. If your girlfriend is happy with those aspects of the D40, perhaps her photography would be more impacted by another lens or two.</p>

<p>Happy Thanksgiving!<br>

Martin</p>

<p>I sent my D200 to Nikon in Mellville a few years ago, and was very pleased with the results. They turned it around in a few weeks, fixed everything, and it came back looking and working like new.<br>

Any other camera you buy for $150 is going to have something about it you don't like...at least with the D70, you already know what those are.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br />Martin </p>

<p>If you had shot those photos with a Nikon, Canon, Leica, or any other 35 mm camera, they would be virtually indistinguishable. Particularly at screen resolution and after scanning. In my opinion (as a long-time Nikon shooter with tons of great Nikon gear) the answer to "How much better could a Nikon be?" is "Not enough to matter."</p>

<p>By all means switch to Nikon if you want to, but don't expect a dramatically visible improvement in image quality. Ruggedness, perhaps, or the user interface will be more to your liking, or the viewfinder will be brighter, or lenses easier to find, but not "Wow! Look how much better the photos look!"</p>

<p>The most compelling reason to get the f/2.8 zoom is that your kids will eventually have indoor plays, concerts, sports, etc. for which none of your other lenses will do. I got one when indoor basketball became a weekly part of my daughter's routine.</p>

<p>The humidity, I've found, is a bigger problem than the temperature. When going from an air conditioned building to warm, humid air outside, the lenses and mirrors fog up and take a long time to clear up.</p>

<p>An out-of-the-box idea that worked well for me: consider buying a used Nikkor 300 mm f/4 prime. I bought one on Craig's List for $550. Like you, I had an 18-200 mm, as well as a 80-200 f/2.8, but needed extra length for shooting gliders. </p>

<p>I found that I was using my zooms at the 200 mm end all the time. I therefore decided that I would seldom use the range below 300 mm were I to buy a zoom, and chose the prime lens.<br>

Regards,<br />Martin </p>

<p>I'd say no...the extra money for the 1.4 lens won't add much to your capabilities. Landscapes and wildlife are outdoor, well-lit subjects, so the extra 1/2 stop or so won't matter much.<br>

As for portraits and indoor, if the D300's low-light performance is satisfactory to you, you won't need the extra half-stop for that, either.<br>

Regards,<br />Martin </p>

<p>I'm a big fan of the Nikon 18-200 mm VR. It's not for indoor sports, but it's a great all-around lens. About $700 and one pound.</p>

<p>Consider this out-of-the-box idea:</p>

<p>Keep the N80 and buy a good Canon point-and-shoot digital camera. If you mostly print 4x6, it'll be fine for touristy stuff. Subjects that don't move, in other words. Canon makes some very nice cameras in the SD series, with IS, etc. Obviously the low-light performance is not up to DSLR standards, but you'll always have with you!</p>

<p>I love the idea that such people are doing the rest of us a great service! Please, folks, buy lots of D3s, D700s, Leicas, big glass, etc. I won't be envious. I'll be patient.</p>

<p>SB-600, -800, or -900 would be my choices. I owned a high-end Sigma flash for awhile, but it was never 100% compatible with my Nikon bodies.<br>

My SB-800 works frighteningly well with my D200. I use it off-camera, with the CLS sync most of the time, but sometimes I mount it on the hot shoe and bounce it off walls, ceilings, etc. The flash head has two degrees of freedom, whereas the SB-400 has only one.<br>

It just works. It lets me concentrate on taking photos, not on working around incompatibilities.<br>

You <em>might</em> get that level of compatibility with another manufacturer's flash, but for the $100 or so you might save, you'll spend a lot of time and wasted photo opportunities messing with it. And if it doesn't quite work, you're hosed.</p>

Six

<p>When that happens to me, I don't buy newer gear, I buy older gear! It's a lot cheaper. Since buying my D200 (my first and so far only D$LR) I must've bought five or six other Nikon 35 mm bodies, and a dozen lenses.<br>

And no, except for one or two of the lenses, it hasn't improved my photos at all. Imagine that.</p>