OPK

<p>have a look at this</p><div></div>

<p>there's nothing wrong with your D200. If you want to gain a look like in "paint the moon", just start messing with sliders in PP software. the one and only way is the right exposure and unique PP which makes your pictures pop (hint: dodge, burning, curves, clarity). no camera gives you this result. moreover - you can achive similar look even with an old D70 or I dare to say - point and shot camera. the one think you can't replicate is DoF.</p>

<p>look at this folio - it could enlighten you a bit.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/caitlinbellah/page1/<br>

pictures was made with Nikon D50. It's not a camera who take a picture...It's a person behind it. I could recomend to work on a technique and light.</p>

<p>here you got lots o pictures taken with D70<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vichi/page1/</p>

<p>it is achievable with analog MF. Just grab camera with new Kodak Portra and overexpose a bit and voila:)</p>

<p>neither.....just buy you some decent strobes, i.e Elinchrom Ranger Quadra.<br>

It will give you more gain in picture quality than just body or lens exchange.</p>

<p>I think we should condemn that no camera with this price point is capable such a results. Sure, could be a better SLRs but for what cost?<br>

It has small viewfinder - that's right, but it works even for people with glasses.<br>

It has small LCD - so? Analog cameras has no preview screen. for me personally that was never been an issue. camera is for picture taking, not watching.</p>

<p>BUT there's a few very important assets - good form factor, solid contruction, everlasting battery, not bad IQ up A3</p>

<p>...and some examples<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=754113</p>

<p>yep, that's a great camera. during last 6 years I bought it twice. I think magic lies in accurate proportion between MPix count and nice colors on CCD Matrix. Form factor is a nice too - much more reliable than newer amateur SLRs. I made enlargements up A3 and honestly speaking didn't see much difference between all my digital equipment - even D700</p>

<p>I think many photographers just hit the ceiling with digital. On some level there's no improvement. Each camera is similar in it's capabilities. Or maybe chasing a rabbit is no longer attractive.<br>

It reminds me story with CD vs analog LP battle. no matter how often you change your player, it's still digital. Only turntable/record player could solve it.</p>

<p>Based on my experience, during last 7 years I had 6 DSLR's (SIX!) - from 6MPix DX till 12MPix FF. After many examinations I couldn't spot the difference between A3 prints.<br>

Now I'm using both, DSLR and analog and I've never been happie. Each one for it's own purposes.</p>

<p>@Ilkka</p>

<p>Professional Digital MF e.g Mamiya DM22 - 10000$ (body, Digital back, standard lens)<br /> Professional Digital FX - 8000$ (just a body)</p>

<p>is that a really big difference?</p>

<p>I went there, and now I'm back to DX and analog MF. FX makes sense to me only with really huge enlargement.<br>

FX doesn't justify the cost.</p>

<p>@Stephen</p>

<p>you didn't mention that initial costs of EOS 1DsMk3 is like 7000$.<br>

cost of good analog body is more or less 100$ - do the math....<br>

yeah, I know - whole additional cost of films and developing and so on...<br>

soft, hard drives, PC cost too and I dare to say that even more.</p>

<p>EOS 100 is also good camera with incredibly quiet film transport....and was used e.g by Helmut Newton.<br>

EOS 620 and 630 is worth mention too. all of them you can have for almost nothing</p>

<p>for me IS is unnecessary cost and I'dont need it. there's just need to bear in mind that your shutter speed should be at least equal to focal lenght. that's it.</p>

<p>so, as long as you shoot at 200mm on FX, shutter speed ought to be 1/200th or 1/250th</p>

<p>D70s is a great camera! If you don't intent print your pictures bigger than A3 such an upgrade is pointless.<br>

Real improvement comes up when you change sensor format to FX. Sure, you can get more bells and whistles but that's it. Try to invest in better lenses or strobes.</p>

<p>For a regular basis I do my proffesional work on 8Mpix sensor and I've never coplain about it.</p>

<p>maybe not Nikon, but I shoot film, especially for my purposes on 35mm and MF. Digital is used mostly for commercial commisions.</p>

<p>don't ever think on selling 135L, it's a gem. 85 1.8 is also good one....and much faster than 85L (in terms AF).</p>

<p>@Yakim</p>

<p>I understand that you had personal experience with that lens. Maybe your lens was faulty or misaligned. Hard to tell. From my observation derives something completely different. It doesn't flare with lens hood and has beautiful contrast.</p>

<p>Soft corners? - didn't observe any special problems. By the way - have you ever seen wide angle lens without soft corners/fringing? it that price range....</p>

<p>leave your flashmeter behind....it's completely unnecesary in that case.</p>

<p>Here's the tip:<br>

1. set the camera flashmode in FP<br>

2. set the flash in FP mode<br>

3. put in camera exposure compensation -1 or -2<br>

4. make the same with your flash but in + (exactly same amount as exposure)<br>

5. take pictures and have fun:)</p>

<p>all of the fixed lens you mentioned are better than 24-70L. Zoom is better only for convenience...<br>

28 1.8 is lovely for travel shooting and is for my taste extremely sharp - look for my Portugal gallery.<br>

85 1.8 is great portrait lens which is contrasty and sharper too.<br>

Now I work with a zoom, which is really good, has lovely color and acutance, but is damn heavy.</p>

<p>....and a crop</p><div></div>

<p>here is an example of my test shot with new Portra 160 on medium format 6x7. scan was made on miniLab in low resolution.</p><div></div>

<p>sharpness isn't everything. no one told about microcontrasts, color rendering and glass quality. almost all pros in city where I live use 24-70 for ther sessions, treating 24-105 as a walkabout lens.</p>

<p>you have to answer yourselfs what do you demand, because both lenses are good. there's always pro and cons. there's no such thing as a perfect gear. just choose what better suits your needs.</p>

<p>that is nature of D700. no matter what, it is unable to render colors in jpg's as crop Nikons. but you can do anything from NEF level and alter pictures just as you wish. try NX2 or ACR with installed Nikon profiles. that will do the job</p>

<p>you can't wish more simplicity than organize files in Adobe Bridge and edit/develop them in Adobe Camera Raw (and all that thing without even opening PS).<br>

I'm not trying convince you to any special soft....but you already HAVE one simpliest solution. at the end It's your money, isn't it;)</p>