jon_j1

Both taken with the 35mm f2 @ f2<BR><BR>

 

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonjanes/2226584314/" title="Eye Of The Beholder by jon janes, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2054/2226584314_47b2fe387a.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="Eye Of The Beholder" /></a><BR><BR>

 

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonjanes/2187465511/" title="This Is What f/2 Looks Like by jon janes, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2327/2187465511_86a98a5d0a.jpg" width="332" height="500" alt="This Is What f/2 Looks Like" /></a>

Ellis: Haha, sorry, I had to have a bit of a chuckle because he comments on how he can't afford a Vr telephoto and you name-drop the 200mm f/2. ;)

 

Lynn: Save for the 70-200 VR f/2.8. Best lens I ever bought (and it does 95% of my concert photography).

Steve: The only thing is can say is that, yes, it seems we do have different expectations of large=print detail. I won't say either is right or wrong, simply different.

Steve: I'm not denying that you can get quality enlargements from 4x5. I know you can. I loved using a 4x5 camera. However, you still comparing apples to oranges in terms of pricing. If you're going to look at used gear, then check KEH for a used d40 (or d40x) with kit lens (since you'll likely be stopping down anyways). the compare that to the 4x5 set-up (include the film holders, dark-cloth, field changing bag unless you buy numerous holders, and film itself + scanner).

 

However, we've gotten off-topic. I'm not denying the beauty of 4x5 enlargements, nor am I denying the quality. When it comes to that size of enlargement, the debate comes down to (for me) distance viewed at. That is, if I make a 32x40 print, how close am I going to be examining it? From 6 inches or further away, say 6-7'?

 

It'd be interesting to compare digital 'Blad backs and 4x5 scanning backs to 4x5 negs.

Steve: Again, in that sentence, I'm referencing medium and large format *DIGITAL* backs. Sorry if it seems confusing to most, but I was referring to the post about 'Blad digi-backs being $30 000.

 

On the second part, however, why do you need a D300? Why not a d40x? There's no reason a d40x (or d40) with a nice prime couldn't do quality landscapes. Even with the kits lens, it can do them. With 4x5, you also have your film costs and your scanning costs (or, alternatively, your darkroom costs, which can be something else - I used to do it). Besides older Speed Graphics, I haven't seen any new large format cameras that come with lens that match the price-point of a new d40 with lens.

Don E: For the last part, I was referring to med/large format digital backs. Even now, there are $500 dSLRs and $8000 dSLRs, but there are no "affordable" med/large digital backs (that I know of).

 

On the first part, there are clearly dSLR cameras aimed at the average consumer, although you are right that "Not all non-pros are "average consumers"."

Steve: Just a thought about your last comment.

 

"It will be a while before that kind of quality is available at reasonable prices for the non-pro."

 

I never thought of large-format (or even medium format) photography as being applicable to the average consumer, therefore, whether the prices for quality of that nature will ever come down far enough is up for debate. Just something to think about.

 

- Jon

Dave - sounds like that. If it is, I'm excited.

Canon has had full-frame for year and still produce 1.3 and 1.6 crops sensors. Why would you think Nikon wouldn't follow suit and keep a variety?

 

That being said, I have the 35mm f/2 and a D300 and I think it's an excellent combo.

3200 ISO in a dark, dark theatre...<BR><BR><center>

 

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonjanes/2243287782/" title="Hayden by jon janes, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2387/2243287782_3ce1537d7b.jpg" width="332" height="500" alt="Hayden" /></a></center>

So, maybe i didn't read it close enough, but are the new PC Nikkors Micro-Nikkors as well, like the 85mm? Part of the reason I've been eying the 85mm is it would function as a micro, a t/s, and a decent portrait lens.

Ellis: Dunno. I've been told by others and read various places it's a good standard to keep.

Hey all,

 

I've been reading a lot about dpi and the like lately, as I've been printing at

home, making sure to keep my images 300 dpi. Now, I've just received a Canon

Pixma Pro 9000 and plan on making some 10x15 and 12x18 prints. With my D300,

the native print size at 300 dpi is about 9.4x14 or around there. The native

file size (converted from RAW TIFF) is about 69mb. After I change the 9.4 to 10

while keeping the dpi the same, the file size is 77mb or so. Will this cause a

noticeable loss in quality if upsized in CS3 this way? Would up sizing it under

3" (say to 12x18) affect it in a negative manner? Should I just print at a

slightly lower dpi?

 

Thanks,

- Jon

I love using these color modes in View NX. I was actually unaware you could get them on the actual camera. do tell.

And why not 16:9 for the movie buffs? 8D

I've used Pyrocat-HD and Xtol on my negs and scanned with a Nikon Coolscan V. IMHO, the Pyrocat did nothing for me. I prefer Xtol for my scanned negs and since I've all but given-up on the darkroom, no need for anything else (except Rodinal).

Y'r lcky. My kybrd dsn't lt m s vwls...

 

 

 

Seriously though, you'd think allowing re-programming of certain buttons would be a great thing. Unfortunately, you can not.

Juanjo: Is that from a D2h or D2hs and is it cropped heavily, etc. I am quite interested in the qualities of the D2h(s).

The last 3 photos on my Flickr were taken with a brand-new 35mm f/2.<BR><BR>

 

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonjanes">See them here.</a><BR><BR>

 

Needless to say, I'm a huge fan. The focal length is prefect for digital and it's a great walk-around lens for those days when a 17-55mm is just too big.

 

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonjanes/2188691828/" title="Mac @ Night by jon janes, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/2188691828_24996bb4d6.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="Mac @ Night" /></a>

I like the thoroughness of your question, but I didn't see it clearly stated so I'll have to ask - Although the 17-55 is costly, have you considered selling the 17-35 to help pay for the cost of upgrading? This would also depend on whether or not you use the 17-35 on film as well, but I feel it's a valid option if you're only looking for a digital solution.

I'd like to throw my $0.02 in and say the 18-70 is a wonderful lens. When I worked at a camera shop this summer, we often had customers upgrade the 18-55 (no slouch of a lens mind you!) to the 18-70 for the build-quality alone. I also had many people in your position (going from point-n-shoot to dSLR) and as long as you don't mind the extra size, it's the better option, easy. The shutter lag on most p&s alone is enough to persuade me to go dSLR.

brad: Well, we're both right actually. I had forgotten you could get a white USA lens, but here in Canada, it's still considered grey market for purposes of warranty.

White Nikons are only grey market as well.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonjanes/1852509731/"

title="12800 ISO by jon janes, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2062/1852509731_aadeaf255e.jpg"

width="500" height="347" alt="12800 ISO" /></a>

 

ISO 12500

Well, I always carry two cameras - one is the D300 with the D300 strap. The other is an F100 with a D2x strap that came with it form the guy I bought it from. Hopefully people who steel will know quality and go for the "D2x." At least it's easier to replace. :P