arun_seetharam

<p>Makes me philosophical!! Can you believe my dad had an FM2 for 25 years!! I bought an FM2 in 1985 which I still have and works like new!!! Just imagine the engineering and mterial sicince aspect of it. It was a beauty to open an FM2 to see the inside. Think of the range of temperature and humidity it can function normally.Quality of pics? Dont even go there.......Metering? Nothing can replace a human brain. All that was needed was center weighted.<br>

Relative to that....D60s, 80, 90, 200, 300 or even 700s are all just use and throw. Now it all is measured in terms of shutter actuations, we shoot a 100 to get 10% right. May be it seems a bit extreme, but the magic word is 'relative to that'<br>

Yea....we got a few more conveniences, but many crippled man's thinking and understanding.</p>

<p>Why would somebody need to use the aperture ring on bodies like D200/80/90/300/700 etc, when the body can do the same or control the aperture setting even finer?<br>

Reducing the mechanics of aperture ring seems a good thing to me in terms of reliability and simplicity in the architecture. Makes it more robust doesnt it? Less moving parts....<br>

Of course having an apperture ring widens the range of cameras the lens can be used on.<br>

Seems just a matter of inclusion....isnt it? When did Nikon release a lens with an aperture ring last? may be 4-5 years ago?<br>

Anyone?</p>

<p>Ha! Ha! Sure Shun.<br>

Yea I know.....with such fast paced electronics industry.....I am thinking myself spending 2500....for another body. I am sure Nikon will make me regret in a few months.<br>

Thank you...</p>

<p>Shun, you always come out with cool stuff. Thats not a bad option at all. The only problem with that is, I cant get the money back from my accountant later. :-)<br>

You know.....D200 is a really nice camera. I really like it. So, is D80 with occasional blown highlights. The problem with both are, even at 600 ISO, pictures seem grainy at 100% crop. 800?? forget it!! Especially with flying birds and wildlife action. I need some 1/1500 shutter speeds. High ISOs have killed me.and of course indoors. Faster autofocus is the other thing I have been hearing (with D300 and 700)<br>

Other than that I seem to just fancy a better one. Thats all...</p>

<p>hey hey!! I messed it up a bit Lil.....I would've expected better than that from myself on that kestrels.<br>

I know....the feds want to put money in our hands and we put the same money back in their hands, both to stimulate the economy?? Huh.....<br>

Thats quite interesting isnt it?<br>

I know Carl, this is one way to pull a faster one on my accountant. Otherwise you think she would approve a D700 sometime else?? Ow man....No way!!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Wow you guys are funny.....God forbid, if I did some wrong calculations somewhere......on the returns.<br>

Knowing the MP myth and reality well, I seem to think 12.1MP is a bit smaller for a full frame sensor, isnt it? I mean the image definition is not so fine grained to see the sharpness it can teall produce within that area........somewhat like a 5MP picture taken on a FX with a DX lens. You know what I mean?<br>

Shouldnt 15MP or more like it on a camera like D700? Is that why sports and wildlife could be compromised on D700?<br>

:-)</p>

<p>This is not a camera comparison or a better value thread, this is just about a better option.<br /> <br /> Tax return time!! I have 2500 on hand. Thinking of another good body. Just one, cant carry any more on my back. <br>

Some info for you.<br>

My entire lens arsenal is full frame except the 12-24, which is the only DX lens I have. <br /> I do wide range of photography, landscapes, architectures, street, sports, people, wildlife, love nightscapes too<br /> I am a technologist and not a photographer 'professionally' (may be make a little bit of money out of photography)<br /> Have a D200, D80 already along with a couple of film cameras<br /> Shoot atleast 100 a week. <br /> I am so leaning towards a full frame camera. But some thin thread is holding me back. May be I am wrong.<br /> <br /> So, is it going to be a D90, D300 or a D700? A 4th option is always welcome.<br>

Thank You folks!!</p>

 

<p>It used to pull my camera down!! I could see a good 3-5mm sag, when I mounted it on a tripod with D80. I am not sure how many have tried this for long enough to see if it breaks. Seems like you need a D200 kinda body for that. :-)<br>

Just for that reason, I sold my 80-200 one-touch zoom for like $650 and bought the new 2 ring version with tripod mount, adding another $200. It is quite easy to sell this lens. I used Craigs. I like what I got!!<br>

Thats how much a new mount for this lens might cost.<br>

Just another option.</p>

<p>A few months back I bought a D80 as a back up for the other cameras I had.<br>

I shoot only RAW. I observed recently that the size of the RAW file generated by D80 and D200 are vastly different. D80 is about 8 to 10M and D200 creates 16 - 18M per picture!! Why is there such a big difference? Will this impact the quality of the picture at a low level?Is there any setting that might have gotten messed up?<br>

Can somebody enlighten me on this, please? </p>

<p>Thank You.<br>

Arun</p>

<p>Which Lens!! This question will break all records for the number of times it appeared. Which indicates that there is no 'right' answer to this Q yet!!<br>

Depends what one appreciates more in the photographs. Width, depth, contrast, sharpness, speed, portability etc. etc. One can summarize all answers and boil it down to one lens and still be disappointed with the purchase. :-)<br>

Yes!! 16-85</p>

<p>Landscape, Architectural, party - Nikon 12-24, f4<br>

Portraits, close in wild life, Sports, events/shows Nikon 80-200, 2.8<br>

Street, general purpose, group photos, party Nikon 24-85 2.8-4 or the older 28-70, 3.5-4.5(?)<br>

Long range wildlife, architecture, action Nikon 80-400, 4.5-5.6 VR.<br>

micro, portrait, ultrasharp textural needs Nikon 105, 2.8 Micro<br>

Paperweight 50, 1.8.<br>

I gottu get out of this zoom infatuation and get lighter, brighter, sharper and cheaper with some good primes.</p>

<p>Dont you think??</p>

<p>I presume.........you are switching on the camera after you connect? hope the memory card is good and can store and play images. and Hope the Camera is not timing out into standby too quickly? Other than that it is just another drive.....</p>

<p>I am using D200, D300 and D80<br>

Thank You Shun..</p>

<p>This one seems to be a legendary lens and am so tempted to buy it.The 85 1.8 I mean.<br>

Before that.....I do have a 105 2.8 AF-D micro and also an 80-200 2.8 AF-D ED. Both Nikon and excellent lenses. Especially the 105mm. It is classy. May be marginally heavier than 85mm. Of course 50 1.8, 24-85 2.8-4 to top it off.<br>

I do a lot of people, street and portrait photography. Landscapes, Flora and Fauna apart.<br>

85mm seems to be nice, light, sharp, cheap, wow lens. Is it worth spending another 400 on it or do you see a pretty good overlap with what I have already and just forget it? <br>

Appreciate your views on what you would do.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot Guys.</p>

<p>Nupe!! VR useless for micro work. Flash is widely used for macro work. So, shutter speeds can be high....</p>

<p>I was shooting D80 with 80-400 in broad day light. This is a slow lens for action photography. So, I was shooting in the range of ISO 400-600 so I get good speed. I got like 1/1000 to 1/1600. Which was perfect for flying birds. I got a lot of shots too. Well frozen but the noise was terrible. You could just see it all over bright and dark areas.....more so in the grayer areas. At both speeds.<br>

Have you experienced this? This should not happen, isnt it? Atleast the noise should not be visible upto 800. Any idea why?</p>

<p>Wow!! It was amazing to see Nikons all around, all kinds at the presidential inauguration ceremony.......It was hard to find a white lens guy!! I am not asserting the superiority in quality of the cameras or something. Every camera has carved out its niche. But I always had my brain instinctively do the stats in any event that I go to or am watching. It seemed to me that Nikon was dominant in fashion art, journalism, nature and so on.....while canon dominated the sports arena. Of course I do see an increase in the number of black lens guys in sports arena.<br>

Is it the glass Vs electronics??</p>

<p>You dont have to be inches close to get half a face. I do a lot of those and use a 80-200 f2.8. Works real nice. It is sharp and versatile. I get very good skintone......such defined freckles, wrinkles.....etc. It is a damn good lens.<br>

Am I missing something here?</p>

<p>Dont forget to try some portrait photography with it!! It is just fabulous and versatile.Great bokehs too....</p>

<p>:-)</p>

 

<p>You all are indeed amazing folks, you are making a difference indeed to bring scenes from life alive!!<br>

Wish you all a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.<br>

Bravo Photo.net Forum!!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So, I guess the virdict seems Bridge+Camera Raw+Lightroom to me. Ooooow.....thats nice and light.<br>

The other thing seems, exposures for RAW is advisable to be better overexposed slightly and then tune it in Lightroom, which is opposite of slide films.<br>

Is that right?</p>

 

<p>Hey Shun , Dont you think, Software tools being such a big part of digital photography, needs a category of its own?</p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>Generally, I would be damn thrilled if out-o-the camera raw image has all attributes of a nice picture. Meaning no tweaks needed. Negligence on my part in the photo-taking always leaves me disappointed. Of course other than that, tweaking comes with a cost. E.g. Cost and time of course, Sharpening may introduce noise, loss of some data with every save, etc.I really would like to avoid much post processing.<br>

I somehow felt that the Nikon Software tools are yet to level up with Adobe or Mac tools in quality and precision.</p>

<p>Seems a dumb question at first, but decided to be child like and ask a question. I know Photoshop is a great tool and I myself own one, and use it to correct wideangle distortions, CA, fool around creating effects etc.<br>

My question is, Having really nice photo gear and Bridge, Camera Raw/Lightroom 2.2 doing great part of the job on pictures that call for some adjustment. Does a good photographer really need Photoshop adjustments to the picture?<br>

With Digital Photography being so forgiving, What is the basic minimum software that would be necessary to have as a part of the photo-gear?<br>

<strong>Particularly from the Adobe Graphic Tools Suite. </strong><br>

Are there any purists that strictly keep away from software tweaks in this digital world of these days?</p>

<p>Oh yea yea....sorry, no VR. Just AF-S on 300 f4.</p>