Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jbm

  1. <p>@Alvin: Nikon has a 17-55/2.8, non-IS lens. No IS, but better images than the Canon version when IS not needed...but the lack of IS is a stinker! And the Nikon is enormous! I still think Nikon lags behind Canon in terms of the breadth of its offerings but not the quality. But I digress.<br>

    @Robert...to meet the terms of your post, the Tamron really sounds like a great but, but the AF's on every Tamron I've ever owned can be LOUD. Sigma I've had quality control problems. You can send things back to them and they're helpful, but who needs that hassle?<br>

    Check out this site: http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/</p>

    <p>Good luck!</p>

    <p> </p>

  2. <p>I have a question I offer in partial seriousness: How do you best hide medium to large photographic purchases from your spouse or significant other? I mean both physically and financially. Come on, confess...<br>

    I usually do this: slip cash intermittently into my "camera fund." E.g. when buying coffee pocket 5 bucks in change, you get the idea. Over time cash accrues. Eventually I get a prepaid cash card and make the purchase with it. Then I put it into the maelstrom of photo junk I have and slowly let it make appearances over 6 months. If my wife ever asks how long I've had iy, I tell her "Uh, for quite a while." If she asks about cost, I tell her, but she has a hard time getting upset about a couple of hundred bucks spent 8 months ago. Usually I do not get in too much trouble.<br>

    What about y'all?</p>

  3. <p>I use both and love taking pictures regardless of the media. Film makes me slow down and the percentage of keepers is higher as I shoot less as the film format gets bigger.<br>

    With BW film of moderately low speed (TMax 100) there is a lot of detail. With a Nikon scanner and an appropriate subject, well exposed and shot with one of my Leica lenses, I am happy with the look of 20x30 inch prints I have made. This is one such shot:<br>


    I have tried the same shot in the same light with my D300 and either I blow out the highlights or can't recover the shadowed bricks without excessive noise. Film works well for this.<br>

    In my studio, digi reigns supreme...and when everything is perfect I shoot a couple of shots with a Mamiya 645 or RZII which look great, also.<br>

    New TMAX 400, by the way, can be scanned and printed nicely to 11x17. Tri-X I find less amenable to scan to large sizes as the grain is much more apparent and I stick to 8x12.<br>

    Now, did somebody say they were giving away an S2?</p>

  4. <p>Yep, CLS is amazing. I just bought 4 (this was a find!) pristine sb-800's at a local shop, boxed, for 200 bucks each. With a few gels and portable softboxes, the possibilities are endless.<br>

    The preflash trigger from my D300 does sometimes cause some blinking...I would love to try the SU-800.</p>

  5. <p>16-85 is slow, exceptionally good, and slightly overpriced for its pedigree. At this level of lens, just get what works and focus on taking a lot of photos. For me, the16-85 was great. It provided professional results for some press kits when I lived in NYC and I love the wide end. However, I dropped mine once from 10 feet onto concrete and it and my D300 have never been the same since. Here are ssome pre drop shots that show how great it is, RAW capture, single pass sharpening. It is much better than the 18-70, but different strokes for different folks.</p>

    <p>http://www.photo.net/photo/7824623&size=lg<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/7824644<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/7943052&size=lg<br /> Good luck!</p>

  6. <p>I agree with Ilkka: non-SLR, APS-C spec'd cameras with interchangeable lenses are a really interesting option. They do seem to incorporate a bit of the joy I still get from my Leica CL...high resolution, discreet size. The Panasonic looks to be a nice option.<br>

    The M9 seems fantastic even if it is not a low light phenom like a D700, but Ay Dios Mio $7k USD is going to hurt or, bare minimum, require some very carefully planned lying, slinking around, and then begging forgiveness from my wife for at least a year. This comes at a horrible time, as I am planning on throwing money I don't have at bicycles, too (my other passion).<br>

    As Robin Williams told his wife when his toy collection (bicycles only) got a little out of control" "It could be worse, it could be ferraris." I told my wife, "Hey, it's not cocaine and hookers" when I bought my D300 but she seemed unimpressed.<br>

    Anyone know if the M9 has bright lines for 40mm? I am still completely in love with the 40/2 that came with my CL!</p>

  7. <p>Yep, scanning film is a massive pain in the posterior, even when it's going well. I still like the quality of the images shot on 400 or lower ISO film better than anything that comes out of my dSLR, with the caveat that digital blows film away for certain situations (studio, anything where you want to change your setup based on instant results). The Nikon scanners are, for the money, really magnificant machines. The film loader with the 5000ed makes scanning an entire roll pretty simple.</p>
  8. If you find someone willing to take a little time at a local lab, you can get decent scans. Thefellow across the street from

    me gives solid 6mp equivalent scans from 35mm. With all setiings neutral, the film images are perfectly sharp without

    looking oversharp, a la dslr. This is all via a Noritsu scanner. If I want them to look even better I use a coolscan 5000,

    which gives great scans of lower ISO films suitable for medium size (10 x 15 inches) that have the texture and via

    scanning more continuous tones and better shadow detail than most dslr photos. The scans really look great.


    In some ways film is more time consuming as the results are not immediate but I have found the return to film

    has brought back a great deal of satisfaction.


    You can ignore Mr. Mann's comments, which are ignorant and do not answer your question.

  9. <p>Platinum work, gents. After a few years with digi, I went basically back to film...thought I am mostly a whatever works kind of guy. These are recent from trip to Nicaragua in Velvia 50 and 100. Great stuff, a little too saturated for me, though so I am getting into Provia with good results.<br>

    <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9434394">http://www.photo.net/photo/9434394</a><br>

    <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9434393">http://www.photo.net/photo/9434393</a><br>

    <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9434392&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9434392&size=lg</a><br>



  10. <p>16-85 VR is an astoundingly good performer even if the apertures are not fast. I did a commercial shoot with it for a cycling team and the results were almost as sharp as my 50mm prime when I pixel peeped.<br>

    Then I dropped it...once...and it has not been the same despite numerous trips back to Nikon.<br>

    I also have that 135/2.8 which is really great. But it's fixed and can't AF, so it's a deal breaker for a lot of things.</p>


  11. <p>Smartest thing I have read in a while:<br>

    "In the SLR world, I always felt the 28mm was wide angle and 50mm 'normal.' But with a 0.7x viewfinder of an M6, I think of the 35mm focal length as what seems normal. Lately, I really like the 50mm- it feels little like a short tele. I think this is b/c of the viewfinder. VF magnification can make a lot of difference in how you experiencing shooting, IMO."<br>

    Well stated. Bigger RF magnification lines allow you to use the perspective of that lens to incorporate a deeper perspective.<br>

    Best advice per above: rent one for a bit and see how you like it. RF photography is not for everyone. My dad does not dig it at all. Another middle priced option is the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder. Cheaper than a used M6, aperture priority shooting, solid build, magnificent viewfinder. Coupled with CV or Zeiss (made by CV) lenses, you can have the RF experience for far less than the cost of Leica equiment. Click on my folder and look in "Recently..."...almost all of the shots are with my Leica and CV lenses.</p>

    <p> </p>

  12. <p>I have not shot many frames with Leica R series, but later is better if you want a long term workhorse.<br>

    Leica M and rangefinder photography, in general, has been the most compelling and satisfying move I have made in my life creatively over the last several years. I grew up with film, started again with digi, then back to film a year ago. Moving into RF from SLR photography is almost as lovely a step as moving from digi back to film: to me it is like going from a techno rave back to the slow, careful, loving intimations of a slow dance. I am accomplishing more in many fewer, more deliberate movements.<br>

    I shoot with a Leica CL. People here will tell you it is too small, and the short RF base makes it inaccurate. In shots that count, I HAVE NEVER MISSED even with fast lenses and it is a wonderfully inexpensive entre for cheap into the M mount world. If you have the coin to start with an M6, or...better...an MP...do it.<br>

    The R series is amazing. Look at Sebastiao Salgado's work for all the proof you need. The RF's are smaller, though, and in today's super large dSLR world, are entirely nonthreatening. An even more unspoken advantage of film is that your subjects know you cannot look at the image on an LCD, so they cannot be immediately embarrassed, so they disarm themselves and let you shoot away. This is heaven.<br>

    Scan well, preferably with a Nikon Coolscan, and welcome to the slow dance.</p>

  13. <p>Yeah, there is some noise even at 200 in my D300. It doesn't really matter, though, in practical use...still it's worth noting that the D50 sensor is pretty solid. Isn't that the sensor that was in the Epson RD-1, also?</p>


  14. <p>Howard,<br>

    I am glad you are enjoying your G10. Anything that makes the process more fun or compelling is worth it to me. I have made some pictures I really enjoy with my Canon point and shoot and it certainly weighs less than my D300 and all the darned lenses. The best camera is the one you have with you, and it is easier to have a point and shoot with you...so cool. Post more.<br>

    I would also like to point out that Eric Arnold gets the fastest wanker award. Howard, you posted a non-contentious and enthusiastic thread and Eric immediately bagged your photo. He offered no constructive criticism or insight into the G10 or your photo, just simply an entre into the standard arguing that us nebbish males with a bit too much free time seem to proffer.<br>

    This means he is a prick. <br>

    He also does not have any photos posted, which I think detracts from his credibility.<br>

    Eric mode of participation is more and more rampant here on photo.net, which is unfortunate. I hope he goes somewhere else.<br>

    Howard, I hope you enjoy the G10 and photography in all it's forms. Please continue to post some shots from it.<br>



  15. <p>Hey, thought I would add two cents after reading the above. Caveat: I am a Nikonian but did use the Canon Rebel XT for a while prior to the change. I have also shot a 40D a fair bit. The one thing I noticed between my older rebel and the 40D was the difference in viewfinder. The VF on the 40D was pretty good, by comparison my rebel was tiny.<br>

    Amazon has the 40D with 28-135 lens for 1049 usd right now.<br>


  16. <p>John...<br>

    I love it! I don't know how the scan of the barn and ivy looks at high res or under a loupe, but if it is crisp, it would make a great looking print. If you don't have access to a darkroom or a printer, check out <a href="http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com">www.digitalsilverimaging.com</a> to make a classic silver gelatin print from a digital file. Their work is amazing.<br>

    Enjoy the machine, post more here when you get the chance!<br>


  • Create New...