ed lake

<p>Greetings<br>

I've had one for many years. It's a great lens. Yes, it's a tank! But a nice one. I haven't tried mine on digital, yet. I used to use it on my F2. <br>

Good Luck</p><div></div>

<p>Greetings<br>

Here is a rose, taken with a 105 micro-Nikkor 2.8. The exposure was 1/3000 @ 5.6, iso 400. It has isolation and adequate sharpness. Takes some practice and luck. Best of both.<br>

Ed</p><div></div>

Looks like the Nikon D3x has been announced in Nikon Pro magazine. There are several threads over at dpreview talking

about it. This adds another iron to the fire.

Cheers

Greetings. To the original poster, either camera is a worthy instrument. I personally cannot hold Canons as they don't fit my hands. That

goes back to the F1 and is still true today. I have a D200 which can make nice large prints (I can only print 13x19 at home, but up to 60"

wide by whatever at work).

Anyway, best of luck whichever system you choose.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Ed<div></div>

My professional work (prepress house) enables me to see a significant amount of

advertising photography before it is published. And it allows me to see the various

retouching steps involved. Nothing you see in an advertisement is real. In fact, they should

be called digital illustrations rather than photographs. In addition, most of the photos I've

seen are under exposed and sometimes out of focus. It looks like they were taken at great

speed to get as many exposures as possible in a short period of time. The clients would

rather spend the money on retouching than proper photography.

It make me glad that I took the fork that I did, and kept photography as a hobby.

Something that I can enjoy and not worry about making a living with. Just my 2 cents

plain.

Cheers

Ilkka Nissila said

"You get one of the DX lenses, like 12-24 and/or 17-55. It's not a good idea to use 35 mm

format wide angles on DX cameras."

May I ask, why not?

Thanx

Hi Jim

It's somewhat harder focusing the D200 compared to my F2 or other film bodies, but it

seems easier than my F100. I'm getting a Katz Eye? Optics focusing screen for my D200, but

that's mostly because my eyes are 60 years old!

Anyhow, the other posters probably didn't read your entire post!

Hi

Shortly after I got my D200, I took my 180mm 2.8 to the Brooklyn Botanic Garden and

shot (on sensor) some ducks. Here is one of my better ones.

You'll have great fun using the manual lenses!

Cheers<div></div>

Bob

You may want to investigate the fixed focal length lenses like 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.8.

These act like 52mm and 75mm lenses on a traditional film 35mm camera. The 17-35

runs about 26-52 in 35mm viewpoint. It really depends on what you are photographing

and your personal style. BTW, Nikon lenses don't contstrain so called "full frame" usage.

Kodak used to market just such a camera with the Nikon mount. It's problems had

nothing to do with Nikon's mount size.

Cheers

I initially thought that the DX sensor size was a limiting factor. Of course, that was before I

got a digital camera. Now I have a D200 and a 20mm lens and that's probably as wide as

I'll get in digital. The 20 is also usable on my F100 and other Nikons, so if I want REAL

WIDE, which would be just a stunt for me, then I can use film. I have found that I don't

really care about "full frame" as it really doesn't apply to digital. Nikon has done what

Kodak did many times in the past: they created a new format for photography that has it's

strengths and weeknesses. What they've done for me was to create a 300mm lens out of a

200 at no extra cost!

By the way, I have no doubts that the D200 is AHEAD of Canon. Canon is more like

Microsoft: they can afford to throw money at a position, while Nikon needs to get it right

the first time. Generally that approach takes longer, but works better.

Anyway, best of luck no matter what you choose to do.

Ed<div></div>

Greetiings

This is actually a pretty cheap price. Adorama lists used FM2N's for about $250 for a body in

excellent condition. That's without the lens! The lens is about another $150 for a total of

about $400. However, the camera serial number is lower than mine, which is about 15 years

old or so. I would suggest that you try a roll of slide film to verify the accuracy of the meter,

before putting down your money. Otherwise, it's a bargain.

Enjoy!

I think that you will really like the F100. I also have an FM2n and a couple of F2's. All

(including the F100) are solid cameras and can take a lot of abuse.

Have fun!

Here is the overall view with the crop area in blue.

Have fun!<div></div>

Just to keep my original post in perspective, here is a reduced version of the original with

the cropped area marked in red.

Ed<div></div>

Hi Steven

All things being equal, the CoolScan will out perform the Epson. I have the 4870 and a

CoolScan III. I really considered getting the 5000, but finances didn't allow both the 5000

and the 4870. Since I needed a flat bed any way, I got the 4870. I don't regret it for a

minute! Since I have a Mamiya 645 as well as several Nikon 35's the 4870 is versitile

enough for me. I'll post a full size crop of the 4870 at 4800 dpi. It's not perfect, but it's

better than you might think.

BTW, the scans from the 4870 can stand a lot of sharpening, but it's always better to

experiment before you print.

Whichever you get, you can't go wrong.

Cheers<div></div>

Here's a reason: You buy it because you want it. Maybe I'll get one too! Who knows?

Cheers.

It sounds like a lens I would like. However, I would use it on a film camera. BTW, 30 mm

was considered fairly wide only a few years ago! If you really want to go W I D E, then get

the 12-24. For me 24mm (which is the widest lens I have) is actually wider then I usually

go.

Also, Pat, don't let salesmen "talk" you into purchasing something you really don't want.

Just my opinion!

I can't speak about the noise of the autofocus lenses since I only have one, but if your

looking at an F100, all the AI and above lenses (from 1977 on) meter in spot and

centerweighted mode and operate in manual or auto exposure. They don't make any noise

when focusing! I also don't use Canons so I can't comment on the shutter noise they make,

but the F100 is pretty quiet for a motor driven camera. It really surprised me there, and

I'm accustomed to manual cameras. It's quiter than my FM2n or either of my F2s.

I once thought the F100 would be my last SLR, but guess what? It wasn't. I recently got a

used FM2N. Now, I've decided to give up my F2 (I'll keep my F) and stick with the F100 and

the FM2N. BTW, none of the Digital SLRs floats my boat, not even the D2H. Canon has

nothing that appeals to me either, regardless of the prices.

What would work is a manual Digital SLR, sort of a digital FM. It would be required to have

a PC cord socket and not just a hot shoe. When I use flash (seldom) it's always on a flash

bracket and hot shoe solutions are just too much of a kludge.

Just my $.02 for today!

I've got a Nikon SP that I paid $250 for used around 1972. Best guess it would cost about

$2,000 today (used) and about $5,000 new. It has more viewing options than the S3, but

otherwise they are the same camera. A used S3 costs more than an SP because fewer of

them were made originally. The S3M is the rarest of beasts since Nikon only made about

197 according to Robert Rotoloni.

One nice thing is the NEW Voigtlander 35mm 2.5 SC Skopar lens I picked up. A really

sharp lens. A used Nikon equivalent would cost about twice as much if you could find it.<div></div>

Obviously, you guys have way too much time on your hands. This isn't really anything to

get worked up about. BTW, I have neither camera and don't intend to purchase them

either.

A professional photo is a photo taken by a professional, meaning someone

who gets paid to do it. All of my photos are amateur photos since I'm an

amateur. The equipment used does not determine whether a photo is

"professional."

Now where did I leave that fire extinguisher?

I would probably be considered a Nikon person rather than a Canon person

simply because my Nikons outnumber my Canon by 6 to 1. I have a Canon

G3 digital but the rest of my 35's are Nikons.

Traditionally, Nikon has been a system company while Canon has been more

scatter-shot with it's offerings. This goes back to the original rangefinder

system, which was very complete, considering that the rangefinders were

Nikon's first cameras. Many people didn't realize it but the rangefinder SP and

the Nikon F were, except for the viewing method, the exact same camera. It

was a testament to Nikon's engineering skills that it lasted for 15 years in the

marketplace. BTW, I own one each of the SP and the F, and both are still in

use. They're probably older than most of the people in this thread!

I have no arguments against Canon and it's innovations. But to say that one

company is better than the other is nearly useless. They are different as ocean

and stream. Each has it's strong points and weaknesses. Right now, Canon is

all over the place with it's offerings. Top of the line is "full-frame" while the

Digital Rebel is 1.6x and others are inbetween. All of Nikon's offerings are

1.5x and they have a dedicated line of lenses for the DSlrs. I perfer Nikon's

styling over Canons, but that's simply a personal prejudice.

Quite frankly, I don't mind being behind the bleeding edge. To me a camera is

a long range investment, not simply an impulse purchase. I would hope that

both companys are around for many, many more years, if only for us to argue

about them!

If I purchase a DSlr, it will be a Nikon. Which one is still up in the air. I'm still

using film (slides) and scanning. I actually enjoy that process as well as the

actual shooting.

Cheers.

PS. I was never a Yankee fan, couldn't possibly be. Have been to Ebbets Field

as a child.<div></div>