joshloeser

<p>The 80/4 is a phenomenally sharp lens. It is as sharp wide open as most other lenses are stopped down, no matter what lens you're talking about. It doesn't really improve when stopped down, which is mainly because it's so sharp to begin with. All you're gaining is more depth of field at smaller apertures. <br>

I've gotten sharp images with the 80 at 1/30th at f/4, though of course that's uncommon (in large part because I don't shoot like that much).<br>

It takes time to learn how to use the 7. I picked up the basics from the first roll I shot and made good photographs from the beginning. Since then, I've learned it well enough to say that I've mastered it. It just takes time and experience.</p>

<p>Bill: Regarding the Fuji paper, it has degraded in quality over the past several years. Paper for making C-prints with a color processor isn't nearly the quality it used to be, based on what I've seen and, more importantly, based on what several great C-printers I know have said. Fuji is using inferior paper products these days, unfortunately (at least compared to what they used to sell). </p>

<p>Is film production really going to be stopped, or is that just the conclusion everyone is leaping to? </p>

<p>You're probably seeing the 65mm framelines. If I look closely in the right light, I can see the 80mm framelines, even though I have a 65/4 myself. </p>

<p>My V500 stopped working early this year, and I've been getting by using some other scanners that were available to me until recently. So, because of that, I'm suddenly interested in either figuring out what's wrong with the V500 or getting another scanner. My V500 is probably shot, but even so, I would like to know why it turns on, yet nothing else happens. Normally when you turn a Vxxx on, you hear the whirr of the scanner getting ready. In my scanner's case, nothing happens. It turns on, it turns off (visible with the green light of the power button) and that's all.</p>

<p>I'm sure it's probably done for, but does anyone have any idea what could have happened? I've tried the usual fixes, like using different power outlets, but it seems beyond something basic like that.</p>

<p>The 28/2.8D is flat out terrible. I own the 24/2.8D and it's good enough for most situations. I owned the 20/2.8D and didn't particularly like it. </p>

<p>Well, I think the idea for many is that the X100 is a secondary/backup camera. Certainly a majority of people who buy one will already have a DSLR camera system in their possession. <br>

As someone who shoots only primes, I see a fixed lens as an asset, particularly given the speed of this particular lens. </p>

<p>No zoom is a limitation? I find that to be a depressing idea. </p>

<p>I use nothing but natural light 99% of the time and shoot as much at ISO 6,400-12,000 as I do at ISO 800 (which is probably on the low end of where I'm usually at). If there's anyone who would theoretically benefit from VR that isn't also a long lens user, it's me, yet I have absolutely no desire for it. </p>

<p>I steady lenses the traditional way, which is by raising the shutter speed to a fast enough level to eliminate any unsteadiness. <br>

I wouldn't categorize myself as just a portrait shooter, but I would say that I use almost nothing but natural light and I photograph people almost exclusively. </p>

<p>VR is for other people.</p>

<p>I have always failed to see the point of including VR in a potential 85/1.4G and that remains true today.<br>

<br />Thom Hogan has continually rambled on about the lack of VR in the 24-70, which is an equally big mystery to me. </p>

<p>Then again, I've never owned a lens with VR and none of the few lenses on my wish list are VR-equipped. It's more than a gimmick, but unless you're using a long lens, it just doesn't seem like something worth the time or investment (particularly from Nikon's point of view).</p>

<p>I got my F5 for $335. A very late model (still the only serial number that I've seen start with "32") and in great condition. Definitely a great camera.</p>

<p>The 70-300L price is ludicrous. The Nikon 70-300 VR is an excellent lens, and is about $500 used (not all that much more new). The difference between the two can easily fund a T2i or D90, depending on your preference. </p>

<p>Is the Nikon version built like an L lens? Of course not, but no one I know of is using their lenses as baseball bats on the side. It's also not built out of recycled paper either. It's as solid as it needs to be.</p>

<p>$1,500? Crazy. </p>

<p>Well, I get great results by my standards. That's all that matters to me.</p>

<p>I'm in the opposite situation from Ross. I just go a couple miles down the road to get my slide film developed. Living near a pro lab makes things much easier all around.</p>

<p>John-- The Canon 24-70L itself is not the greatest of lenses. Photozone required four copies to test before it found a suitable one that wasn't marred by decentering or some other defect. It is relatively weak on full frame, and certainly is well outpaced by the Nikon 24-70, which shines brightly on either FX or DX. Canon needs a new 24-70 as soon as it can get one out the door, which apparently shouldn't be too long from now. </p>

<p>I'd rather have a 24-105L than a 24-70L. </p>

<p>Thank you, Shun.<br>

I think the incorrect figure for the 24-120 would basically match the Canon 24-105, but I don't think that's meant to be. </p>

<p>Can we get a definitive price list? Nikon's press release does not match their website prices.</p>

<p>Here's the thread for you: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/889216</p>

<p>Very sorry for your loss. I guess I'd like to know what the thieves usually say when they're caught, because some of them are caught. I imagine the opportunistic ones have something different to say from those who methodically plan their thefts out (and I've read stories from both categories here). </p>

<p>No! (x 100) :(</p>

<p>C41 can't touch E-6 so far as I'm concerned. I'm biased to some extent, because I live a couple miles from Arizona's largest E-6 lab. I shudder at the thought that someday, C41 is all that's left. Guess I'll have to stock up on Sensia and some other slide films.</p>

<p>I understand this feeling, yet I almost have pity on those who have too much gear.</p>

<p>I have this:<br /> D700<br /> 24/2.8<br /> 50/1.8<br /> 85/1.4<br /> 180/2.8</p>

<p>That seems to be a great combination for my needs. I got my 180/2.8 for cheap ($500) at FM, my 24/2.8 from Adorama, my 85/1.4 new from B&H and my 50/1.8 new from my local store. The only two things I'd really like now are the 24/1.4 and probably the 14-24. A Tamron 28-75 wouldn't come amiss, but it's not a priority. I'm almost exclusively a people photographer, so it enables me to narrow things down a lot. I push my D700 a lot, regularly shooting at 6400 and up. My 180/2.8 is the lens I feel most creative with, and the 24/2.8 is right there as well. I got my D700 about a year ago, and my photography started to get noticeably better right around then, probably from a combination of increasing experience and better gear. I feel very fortunate to have what I do. But, other than the 24/1.4 and maybe the 14-24, nothing really calls out to me. I'm lucky to be able to accomplish just about all I want to do with what I have. </p>

<p>Basically, I think you have to match your gear to your needs. If you don't feel like your gear matches your needs, I can see feeling envious. Otherwise, it seems to be a pointless exercise.</p>

<p>But with all that, you did not say a word about my point with regard to FX staying FX. Full frame cameras are and will no doubt continue to be prized, and the D700 will be as much of that five years from now as today. Further, it is well built and the autofocus is strong. <br /> This thread will no doubt be here in five years, and I will be pleased to post down the going rate for D700s when that day arrives, and I suspect it will still command far more than many people think. I don't see it going for less than a thousand in new condition for a long time.</p>

<p>The D700 can only be improved on so much? FX is FX, which is unchanging. ISO ability will be improved, but only by so much. Autofocus can be improved, but again, only by so much. Construction is unlikely to improve much. Ease of use probably won't improve much. It produces terrific images now, and while better ones will no doubt be possible in three and then five years, we're talking incremental improvements. I'd say the lack of video will be the one thing that causes future photographers to downgrade it a bit. Otherwise, it will be as worthy in 2013-5 as it is now.</p>

<p>The D100? The D100 was a converted N80, poorly built, no weather sealing and mediocre autofocus. The D700 is far superior in just about every category except weight, and that weight helps make it what it is. </p>

<p>Shun: I truly don't think you understand why the D700 is so popular and why it will remain as such for years to come. It is a well built <em>full frame</em> camera. That FX bit is what will keep it popular for a long time. High ISO ability will continue to improve, but FX is FX. There is no improving that, except by changing formats. It's well built, has great autofocus ability, is solid and is pretty easy to use. That is why it will be considered a classic someday. <br>

All the talk about how the D700 will be left behind or looked at the same way the D200 is today misses the stark reality that FX as a format is unchanging. You can go to a different format, sure, but if you want your 85mm lens to be an 85mm lens, it will be so on the D700 five years from now as much as it is today. </p>

<p>I think it would be horrible to lose slide film entirely. I mean that sincerely. It produces a look that neither color negative film or digital can replicate. My favorite type of shot is a well done slide image. </p>