craig_supplee

<p>Shawna, Please don't compare your linked Tamron to the new Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD SP lens. They are worlds apart. I have the new version, and as many people will attest on here, it is an excellent lens. On my D7000, it is sharp, sharp, sharp!!! The VR works great too. It does hunt for AF somewhat in low light, but to me this is not a problem. It doesn't have macro capability, but there are better choices for that type of shooting. I also have the older Tamron 70-300 macro from my film days, and would definitely consider a new Nikon macro over that if this was an important part of my photography.</p>

<p>I went from a N80 to D40, to D7000. The D7000 camera is brilliant, but you do need to consider getting the best glass you can buy, as 16 MP will show flaws in some older glass if you try to print at decent wall size prints larger than 8x10. I have printed at 20x30 and they look great!<br /> I wonder at the problems of having a 500 GB hard drive and needing to delete and clean for space. A typical processed file might be 20-40 MB depending on if you shoot JPG or RAW. This would equate to approximately 12,500 to 25,000 pics on a 500GB drive! That's a lot of pictures. I run Windows 7, 64 bit with only 4GB of RAM, and total storage of 410 GB on two drives, and have no problem processing RAW files in PS Elements 10 or Capture NX2.<br /> If you can swing the D7000 and possibly some new glass, you will noy be sorry, and will be probably be hard pressed to outgrow that camera.</p>

<p>Ralph, some excellent advice. Thanks.</p>

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>Thanks for your suggestions. I will do some research.</p>

<p>I get the idea that Wayne likes to criticize people. He not so directly indicated that I might not be so smart in a post on here the other day.</p>

<p>Maybe the wrong thread, but this did bring this subject to my forethought.</p>

<p>Except for the family shots, which, even if they complain about, I keep shooting, I have always been an inanimate object, landscape photographer. I would love to try shooting some street stuff, but as I am kind of thin, wear glasses, and hate confrontation, how do I proceed without getting my glasses/face smashed, kicked in the gonads, or worse, and get some cool shots? Go spend mega bucks on a super telephoto? I love a lot of the work I see on this site, it just makes me wonder if I could pull any of it off. Thoughts?</p>

<p>Ok, I'll go first. Since I have a simply fantastic FM2n and excellent vintage glass to go with it, I would buy vast quantities of Velvia 50, 100, Tri-X, and processing machines and chemicals so I could do it right at home. And seek out the best Nikon scanner. I'd probably have to dip into savings at that point!</p>

<p>Wayne,<br>

I guess I'm not very smart, as I was just looking at it as to how funny the price was. </p>

<p>John, maybe the rear cell is hiding on the other side of the $10,000.00 black velvet! What is in back of the curtain...</p>

<p>I needed this laugh tonight! Unbelievable. <a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Carl-Zeiss-Jena-Tessar-1-3-5-F-7-5cm-Lens-/370665646757?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item564d64eaa5">http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Carl-Zeiss-Jena-Tessar-1-3-5-F-7-5cm-Lens-/370665646757?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item564d64eaa5</a></p>

<p>I'm a hobbiest photographer so I will just throw this out there for consideration. It is possible that they (NYC) are trying to circumvent possible lawsuits by not allowing anyone other than their staff to record the damages in certain areas. I don't think anyone is trying to hide the effects of the storm, just trying not to add more collateral damages to what is already there.</p>

<p>Nathan, did not see a link in your post.</p>

<p>again</p><div></div>

<p>Bridge</p>

<p>Actually Agfa is now being made by this company:<br>

<a href="http://www.lupus-imaging-media.com/content/view/77/58/lang,en/">http://www.lupus-imaging-media.com/content/view/77/58/lang,en/</a></p>

<p>I don't have a lens suggestion for you, just want to say congratulations. You must be very proud and happy parents! Job well done by the sounds of it.</p>

<p>Actually, you don't have to offer a return on any items, but you do have to state that you don't accept returns. The following is a quote from eBay:</p>

<p>"All sellers on eBay are required to specify a return policy. This is true even if your policy is not to accept returns. If you don't specify a return policy, we'll select a default return policy for you. <br /><br />You can set up and choose the details of your return policy--time limit, charges, item condition, and more--in the <strong>Other things you'd like buyers to know </strong>section of the form you use to list your item."</p>

<p>Great pictures and a beautiful camera. My first camera was an XE-5. How I miss it. I can still feel the silky smooth and quiet film advance lever action.</p>

<p>McKeown's 12th addition 2005-2006 says this about the lens: 50mm f1.1 Internal bayonet: $2000-4000. External bayonet: $2500-4500. Add $2000-2500 for matching shade.</p>

<p>Pete, I think I might get the stupid of the day award. After reading your last post I decided to replace the battery even though it was reading very high before. Still didn't work. Then I decided to try it with the dome for incident light slid in place. Voila! I was able to get reasonable(?) readings. It showed f 7.1 for the SB 600. This seemed low, so I then tried the flash on camera with both manual, and iTTL settings. The manual settings actually had the histogram more in the center, even though they looked too bright on my display. I do realize that the display is not too accurate. The manual for the Polaris doesn't mention anything about using the dome for flash, so that's what was confusing me. You learn something new every day. Thanks for your help.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Pete, I just reran my test. Flash meter leaning up against back of sofa set to highest shutter speed of 500, ISO 100, standing 10 ft away using SB 28 (GN 118') on M 1/1 got an f 64 reading. Same situation with SB 600 flash GN 98') gave me f 45. I don't understand these f stops, unless my meter is not working properly., or am I not understanding something here?</p>

<p>I'm trying to emulate the test that Ilkka did today using my SB 600, SB 28, and Polaris SBD 100 flash meter and can't seem to figure this out. I stood the flash meter up on my couch, marked off the correct GN distance for ISO 100, set the flashes to ISO 100, 35mm zoom, aimed them at the meter, but am ending up with f stops of f45, f64, f32. I have used this flash meter before to correctly expose film shots in old cameras, but can't figure out what is going on with just firing the flash in hand. Ideas?</p>

<p>Barry, had she fallen down? Nobody appears concerned and the photographer is taking it all in stride so I assume she is doing it purposefully . . . but what is it?</p>

<p>It looks to me like she is making a hand print in wet sand.</p>

<p>Shawn's pic, I have to admit, I would have liked to see the wedding. Actually, on closer review, do her arms look a little too muscular to you? Wonder what kind of parade this was.</p>

I have no proof of this but it is possible that those LCD screens use a product like Corning Gorilla glass just as the new iPhones use.

Virtually scratch proof under normal use.

<p>Matt as always is right in asking what you shoot. This will determine what lenses you need/want. I have the D7K and seem to get my fingers into shooting a little of everything. My current kit consists of a Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX DC OS, the Tamron SP 70-300 4-5.6 Di VC USD, and just picked up a Nikkor 24 2.8 AF-D to try on some street work. All of these lenses offer excellent IQ on the D7K. Shun Cheung did a review of the Tamron on this camera but I can't find the link. I did have the 16-85 for awhile, and although it was decent, I opted for the Sigma due to the full time max aperture.</p>

<p>I must have gotten a great copy of the Nikkor 24mm, as my initial tests show it having great sharpness in the corners even at f2.8, and I tend to be a pixel peeper!</p>

<p>The camera is wonderful, and as long as you match good glass to it, you will not be disappointed.</p>