brian_bahn

<p>It's funny, and not to get off subject but when I read the OP the first thing I thought of was "well, if it was a D300 the shooter probably realizes ISO800 is better than ISO400". Because my D300 is certainly that way. especially if there is red in the picture. So I see from Matt's explanation that it was the D300, just not for the reason I was thinking. I shoot sports more than anything and on a day where it's overcast and I need higher ISO than 200 I jump right over 400 and go right to 800 because it really does look a lot better.</p>

<p>Actually there is no need. I got the lens today and it came with the hood, caps and case! Thank You B&H used dept! 35 2.8 only came with rear cap so I'll need a hood for that one.</p>

<p>Just ordered a Zuiko 24 2.8 and Zuiko 35 2.8 from B&H. I already have the 28 3.5 and am wondering if the metal screw on hood from that will work with the 24 2.8 or will I get vignetting?</p>

<p>I also have to mention no matter how much I ignore the little beauty that is my OM-1(I have Nikon D300) it just keeps gnawing at me to get it out and use it. So every few months I get it out and run a roll through it. Actually my last roll still needs developed. I shot some Tri-X but need to have it sent out to be developed.</p>

<p>So obviously it always gets the best of me and I just can't ignore it so I bought some more lenses. LOL. Lens line up is now 24 2.8, 28 3.5, 35 2.8, 50 1.8 and 135 3.5. With my next goal either an 85 f2 or 100 2.8</p>

<p>Here is a link to the full size pic.</p>

<p>http://s826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/double_b_photo/Beach/?action=view&current=21_21.jpg</p>

<p>This is a shot I took with my OM-1 with Kodak 200 Gold last week at the beach. now, I had it processed at a local CVS. I realize that for a $3.49 fee(process and scan to CD) I shouldn't expect that much, but this just looks so bad and I don't know if it's the low resolution scan, the spots are from dirt during scanning or what. I would actually like to get a larger print of this, maybe 8x10 or 11x14 but not if it's just a bad picture period.</p>

<p>My question is how do I know from this scan if it would look alright larger? Just get them(or someone else) to do a 4x6 print and see what an actual print looks like instead of low rez scan?<br>

As for the exposure itself like I said OM-1 with Kodak Gold 200, 28 3.5 Zuiko, if I remember I believe I was at f/16(maybe f/11 but most likely 16) and I always keep SS above focal length so I am thinking I was at at least 1/60(next drop is 1/30 and I wouldn't have gone there). Focus point is a little sketchy but it is a 28 lens and I am sure it was out close to infinity. I don't think these are issues but not 100% sure.<br>

The "tech" that did the processing was actually working on when I stopped and she said the film was sticky so I must have left it in the heat. Which I did have it at the beach. So could that be causing the graininess and overall "dirty" look?</p>

<p>Any thoughts? Thanks<br>

<img src="http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/double_b_photo/Beach/21_21.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I forgot to add that I was looking at the 55 because it's right around or less than $100. The 60 2.8 is over $200 and since it's my first macro I figure I'd go inexpensive and move up if I find I need/want to.</p>

<p>Thanks for the quick replies guys.<br>

Michael - Not sure how I didn't pick up that the compensating version was called out on KEH, I looked over their listings quite a bit and then BAM, there it is. Haha. Also I guess there really won't be another 10% because I have a 50 1.8 I would use for that FL.</p>

<p>Craig - I'm not overly concerned with having to have the early version, I was just figuring if both versions were equally available I might as well get the one that is better with macro. But as Michael pointed out if there isn't thaaaat much difference I might as well save the effort and just get an AI version. I just thought if all things equal I should get the one that would do better for what I would be using it for, but that doesn't appear to be the case.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am looking at buying a macro lens to use on my D300, and most likely some use on my new to me FE. From the research I've done I have found as most of you probably know that there are many versions of this lens. I will be using this lens for macro 90% of the time, so I would prefer the version that is more suited for macro and not "corrected" for focusing at distant objects.</p>

<p>How can I be sure that I get the earlier version? Make sure it has the dual(compensating) aperture numbers? Also what is an AI'd version? I see one at KEH that has this designation. Is that the earlier version?</p>

<p>BTW. Does anyone happen to know if KEH shows the exact model of the lens or just a general picture of the model. I know it's not the actual lens they show a picture of. I know I can call them, I just didn't know if anyone knew for sure.</p>

<p>I searched for this but am not having any luck. The term "EM" does not play well in search mode, I get a lot of "them". LOL.</p>

<p>Anyhow, I picked up an EM for 10 dollars last night and am curious if any of my current lenses I use on my D300 will be compatible. I have 85 1.8 AF-D, 80-200 AF-D and one I am really wanting to try is my Tokina 12-24 f/4(non af-s).I realize the 12-24 will vignette at anything lower than 18mm.</p>

<p>I really want a different manual focus body because I know the EM isn't all that(holding out for a 50 dollar FE, FM, FM2, etc..). I saw it on CL and figured for 10 bucks it may be OK for a little while. It has the 50 1.8 E series lens and a super cheap DeJur 135 2.8 lens. A couple of generic close up filters I may play with.</p>

<p>Dieter, you posted just as I was posting mine so I didn't see your link before my reply. I looked at the link, interesting, but what I would pay for the parts and shipping would be the same as the 55 micro Nikkors I am considering. Thanks anyhow.<br>

Shun, I agree, after your explanation it's not worth it. I need to wait and purchase a macro when ready. Maybe sell the Viv but I still have an OM-1 I use occasionally so I am not sure yet.</p>

<p>Thanks Guys</p>

<p>Dang. OK. Thanks Shun, that's the exact type of answer I was looking for.</p>

<p>I need a macro lens to shoot some jewelry product shots for a friend(and because I want a macro haha) and thought this was maybe a way to get one super cheap as I just spent money on umbrellas and stands and , well, shouldn't spend anymore. LOL.</p>

<p>I have an Olympus OM mount Series 1 Vivitar 70-210 3.5. If I buy a scrapped Nikon mount of the same lens can I disassemble the lenses and switch mounts? If so how difficult is it and is it worth it? I am not afraid to do it if it is possible(within reason), I am mechanically proficient so that part doesn't bother me. Just need to know what is involved.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>I want to put multiple images into one image and then soften/blend the edges so I don't see the hard, square edges of each of the original images. I have PS Elements 7 and Lightroom.<br>

I looked on Adobe's sight and the "help" I get is for Layer Masks, which seems to be what I want but for whatever reason it's not working for me. First off they say to select the paint brush tool. Well, I have "smart brush" which only gives me effects like blue sky, etc... which I don't want.<br>

I just cannot get my head around how this is supposed to work. I am not the most experienced at Elements, really only use the basics and I ahve purchased pre made templates and have no problem getting most of what I want. But for some reason this task eludes me.<br>

I am thinking I obviously create a new layer, and "paint" the area I want to keep or discard and the end result is a nice softened edge around the picture and where the pictures overlap.<br>

Thanks for any help. This is frustrating me and I know it's fairly simple.</p>

<p>I am getting together what I need to finally start some off camera flash work. I have ordered lightstands and umbrellas(Impact and Wescott). Now I need to figure out which triggers I want to go with and exactly what I need as a minimum to start with.</p>

<p>I have an SB600 and an old Vivitar 283. I was considering either the Cactus V4 or the Cybersyncs. I would prefer to go the Cybersync route for a little better quality plus I like the Made In America idea and really would like to support that.</p>

<p>That being said I would like to be able to get the absolute minimum right now to be able to trigger both flashes and I am getting a little confused on exactly what I would need. Do I really need 1 transmitter plus 2 receivers plus hot shoe to PC adapter for the SB600? Or can I get 1 transmitter, 1 receiver and maybe an inexpensive optical slave to attach to the Viv 283? Of course I guess I still need the adapter for the SB600.</p>

<p>I guess it's the SB600 no PC connection that is hanging me up isn't it? Any suggestions/opinions on what gets me triggering 2 flashes for the least money right now? Using Cybersyncs right now? I know I could get Cactus for about 85 shipped but like I said I want to go with Cybersyncs.</p>

<p>If you need 300 then the 300 f/4 AF-S is the way to go. It's a great lens. Super sharp and colorful, light enough to handhold easily. did I mention sharp?</p>

<p>I really have nothing to add to this thread(though I am reading it because I will be in the market for strobes vs lights soon) other than to say Kent, I wonder if the train conductors thought "what the heck was that bright flash"? haha</p>

<p>It's been awhile since I posted in here. No reason, just haven't. Here are some from YMCA Swimming Nationals in Ft Lauderdale last week.</p>

<p><img src="http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/double_b_photo/Y_Nats_Resized/dsc_2702_01.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/double_b_photo/Y_Nats_Resized/dsc_2706_01.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/double_b_photo/Y_Nats_Resized/dsc_2451_01.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/double_b_photo/Y_Nats_Resized/dsc_2560_01.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/double_b_photo/Y_Nats_Resized/dsc_2783_01.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<a href="http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/double_b_photo/Y_Nats_Resized/dsc_2706_01.jpg"></a></p>

<p>I don't have either but can tell you from reading quite a bit about both the majority says the Tamron focuses quite slow for sports so I'd go with the Sigma.</p>

<p>But I also throw in a vote for the AF-D 80-200 2.8 Nikon. I use it a lot for sports on my D300 and it works great. But if it isn't in your budget(look at used) then I say Sigma.</p>

<p>Thanks matt. I'll try again.</p>

<p> <img src="http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/double_b_photo/Birds/cardinal-snow.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Bruce.<br>

Thanks, I just looked and found one(many available actually). I really assumed since it was such an old model that there would be no replacement parts for it.</p>

<p>Now to see if it will actually work after sitting so long. Thanks again guys.</p>

<p>Is it an OK flash? I see they're not selling for much used so I assume they're just average. Which is fine for me for now. Just curious.</p>

<p>Tim,<br>

Thanks. I see there is a complete one on KEH "Bargain" for 14 bucks...I may get it hoping it has the battery holder in it I need.</p>

<p>I will be using it OFF camera. I had already checked the voltages before and this thing is off the charts dangerous. haha. I have an SB-600 for my D300 so I'm fine. I want to use this 283 on a stand with umbrella.</p>

<p>I have an older Vivitar 283 flash, I am guessing late 70's to early 80's model. I bought it used 20 years ago and have never used it(came with OM-1 I use ocassionaly). Well, I would like to try to use now, if possible. I want to use it off camera using radio triggers, I have yet to purchase, just now looking at putting together a stobist kit and figured I have it I might as well use it.<br>

I went to put batteries in it and there is no diagram on the flash itself showing how they go in. So I get out the manual and it says to be sure to use the battery holder.......well, there is no battery holder in it. haha...I tried putting the batteries in in every possible scenario but it won't work.<br>

I am not sure if it won't work due to just being old or if I really need the battery holder. The batteries seemed snug and not loose.<br>

Does anybody have an older Vivitar flash liek this they can comment on. If I need the battery holder does anyone have suggestions as to where to get one?<br>

Or should I just forget it and buy a new Vivitar 285H? Or something similar.</p>

<p>I found Bryan Petersen's "Understanding Exposure" to be very clear and simple with the basic exposure. That's where it all starts. I have currently just started reading "Light Science and Magic" and while I can't form an opinion yet since I just stareted I will say it seems to be very highly recommended.</p>

<p>How about a "refurbished" D90 and a used lens? Buying used can save you enough to maybe get you close to what you want. A refurbished or reconditioned body is nearly new and has been back to the factory to be "gone over". If going this route and being a noob I suggest KEH.com or Adorama or BH Photo Video. All three are well respected in their used and reconditioned sales. I have bought a lot of my stuff used through them and have been extrememly happy.<br>

A good point that John brings up is the D90 being able to auto focus the older non "AF-S' lenses. To try to keep it simple since you're just starting if you get a D5000 or D3000 you would need a lens from Nikon that has the "AF-S" moniker on it. This means it has it's own motor and does not rely on the body to auto focus it. D90 has the motor in the body to auto focus lenses w/o the AF-S motor. <br>

As to the macro lens....I'm not sure as I don't have one myself but eventually will be wantign one, on a budget so I am all ears along with you. haha<br>

Also if you are still learning what the actual lens numbers mean you may want to buy a basic photography book. It will explain a lt of what you're wondering and trying to learn right now.</p>

<p>I may have an opportunity to shoot Individual and team portrait for a local high school swim team. I will be discussing with the coach soon so it's not a given yet. I would like to start to be prepared for shooting individual portaits in the pool area now so I am ready if/when the time comes.</p>

<p>I know little to nothing about lighting these situations, lighting anything really since I mostly do action shots and never use flash for that. I did ask for "Light, Science Magic" for Christmas so I will be reading that ASAP. But in the meantime I wanted to ask what is the bare minimum I am going to need equipment wise. I intend to shoot with no backdrop, I will select a location in the pool area that I feel looks best.</p>

<p>As most know high school pools are poorly lit and have walls and ceilings not really adept at bouncing light. I have a Nikon D300 and an SB600. I have no diffuser or reflectors, or stands. Obviously if this goes through and I feel it will pay decent I am up for buying something upfront that will help. I would like to keep that under $200. As far as lenses I have 85 1.8, 35 1.8 and 80-200 2.8.</p>

<p>So my question is what would I need as far equpiment, I'm looking to not stand there with the SB600 aimed directly at them, but also I am not looking to bring in anything more than one stand with softbox or umberella. I could get a helper to hold a reflector. Second question is layout of umbrella/softbox(if neccessary) and reflector. Any websites I can look at for basic layouts of portrair lighting like this?</p>

<p>Thank You very much. Any answers are appreciated.</p>