aaron_d.

<p>Like many people, I like to use two cameras when shooting events. My preferred carrying method is to have both straps over my neck and one shoulder, so the straps are crossed in the front and back. My problem is that all my camera straps have a non-slip surface on one or both sides, making the camera I put on first difficult to swing to my eye. Is there a decent, padded camera strap out there that doesn't have a non-slip surface?</p>

<p>I've seen Blackrapid's R-Strap, but I'm not really excitied by the attachment method - I basically like having the straps connected to the strap lugs. I also don't like quick release straps, so a strap without the quick release funtion would be better.<br>

<br /> Thanks,<br>

Aaron</p>

<p>Harvey, I think you may be dissappointed with any upcoming m4/3 cameras. Regardless of their other features, they are going to have the same effect on the effective focal length of your lenses. Same size sensor = same crop factor.</p>

<p>Aaron</p>

<p>Wow! Thanks so much for everyone's fantastic response! It sounds like the n80 would be a great (and cheap!) start, maybe picking up a f100 if I enjoy the n80.<br>

I have two older all-manual, no meter film bodies (one 35mm, one 6x6) that I don't use much. I think it's the lack of metering that keeps them on the shelf. I have a decent light meter, but don't enjoy photography as much when using it. I do mostly portraiture, and slowing down to pull out a light meter always feels cumbersome.<br>

That's exactly the sort on info I was looking for - thanks again! </p>

<p>Aaron</p>

<p>My first SLR camera was digital, so I don't have any experience with film SLRs. I'm currently shooting with a d300, which I really enjoy. I also still use and like my d80. I'd like to try using some of my lenses with a film camera though, for an alternate look. My 105mm f/2 DC is the lens I'd most like to try with film. I also have a 35mm f/2 that would be fun to use as a wider angle lens. </p>

<p>Coming from Nikon's DSLRs, what would be a good, basic film SLR? <br>

I'm a little baffled by the variety out there. Coming from digital, I don't always understand the pros and cons, even informed reviews.<br>

I'm ok with manually setting the exposure, but a reliable meter would be nice. Autofocus would also be prefered (it doesn't need to be lickety-split fast), but manual focus would be ok too. Ideally, I'd like to spend $200 or less. Any ideas?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Bruce - I was deciding between those same three cameras and ended up buying a panasonic LX3 a few weeks ago. <br>

I've been very happy with it so far. This is my first camera with image stabilization, and I've been very impressed with the results at 24mm-e, f/2, 1/8th second. Subject motion aside, that's let me take pictures in very dim surroundings with good results. <br>

Photos in good light are great too. For me, it came down to the size (the G10 isn't really pocketable), lens speed (f/2 lets me avoid the noisy high-isos), wide angle (having 24mm-e is really great for indoor, macro, and landscapes). <br>

If your priorities are different, your mileage may vary. I think the image quality is good (but not fantastic) from either the g10 or D-LUX 4 (LX3). From samples I've seen, the DP2 produces better files, but you lose the flexibilty of a zoom, if that's important to you.<br>

I don't own a dedicated video camera, so the video capabilities of the D-DUX4 were also a selling point. I don't use the video that often, but it's nice to have for the occasional family scene. The videos from the D-LUX 4 are a lot better than the g10, and WAY better than the DP2.</p>

<p>It's tough to recommend a camera without knowing your overall budget. For most uses, the d700 is the best camera, absolutely. But with the $2000 price difference between the 200 & 700, you could pick up a lot of other equipment, which may be more important than the differences between two great cameras. <br>

With that difference you could get a decent computer (if you don't have one already), some software (Lightroom is great, and about $300), and a very nice lens. Or a couple very nice lenses, if you're set in the hardware/software department. <br>

Few of us (certainly not me!) have the luxury of unlimited camera budgets - it's always worth considering what else you might get with the same money. I think I'd rather have a slightly outdated camera (either the 200 or 300) and a very nice lens (or a couple flashes, light modifiers and wireless triggers).</p>

<p>Got to say, I disagree with most of the other posters here. There's a big difference between the effort of shooting a whole wedding, and a few staged formal shots. Presumably they're not renting out the church / hall again / Getting another cake / etc? If you have a rate for a bridal portrait session, I'd use that - plus something extra for each additinal person/pose.</p>

<p>The focus isn't that far off - just an inch or two. I suspect I could fine-tune, if I had a d300 or d700. However, upgrading to either one of those is still at least 6-12 months away for me.</p>

<p> </p>

<p >So, I got my 105mm DC lens last week, new from B&H, along with some good advice from folks here on the forum.</p>

<p >However, bit of a problem. It's consistently front-focusing by about 1-2 inches (on my d80). At f/4 and beyond, it's not that big of a deal, because there's enough DoF to make sure the subjects eyes are in focus. I like it's rendition of skin tones better than my other lenses, but if it's only usable at f/4 and smaller, I'm not sure it's $900 better. BUT at f/2-f/2.8, getting a person's eyes in focus is a crapshoot. I have to aim between their eye and their ear to get their iris in focus. I also set it up on a tripod, just to confirm it wasn't something wrong with my focusing/lens holding technique. The same front focus appears on a tripod.<br>

So, I'm not sure what my best option is. I see a few: <br /></p>

<p >1) Keep it, and learn to live with the limitation for now. At some point this year I'd like to upgrade to a d300/700, and may be able to fix the problem with the focus fine tuning those cameras offer.</p>

<p >2) Return it for another copy. It seems like this is a common problem with this lens, on newer digital AF systems. It seems likely that I'll encounter the same problem with the next lens.</p>

<p >3) Send it to Nikon for alignment/repair. I've never used Nikon service before, not sure how (if) that would work. It was a new, USA copy.</p>

<p >4) Exchange it for something else. Not that appealing - I really had my eye on this lens. I like the Defocus control already, and am already using the options it opens up. However, there are certainly other options out there for portraiture. Maybe one of the 85mm's or a fast zoom.<br>

<br /> What do you think? Any advice will be much appreciated.</p>

Thanks for all the input. I think there's a couple places near me that rent lenses - that's a good idea. </br></br>

 

Big prints are what I'm looking for as my final output. Right now, the biggest print I've made (that I've been happy with) was 12x18. I've printed out a couple pictures at 20x30, and they looked OK at a normal viewing distance, but not great. I suspect I'm running into the limitations of my camera (d80), not my lens - correct me if I'm wrong though. </br></br>

 

Here's one that I liked at 12x18, but not at 20x30:

<a href=" title="Backlit Cacti by A Dill, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/2060455817_f7c6d2a7b7.jpg" width="500" height="334" alt="Backlit Cacti" /></a>

Here's a question that I'm hoping more veteran photographers can help me with: How much of a difference does a

good lens actually make? I've read many times that it's better to invest in good lenses. Are there any

side-by-side comparisons of kit lens vs. "good" lenses, using real photographs?

 

I know there's a ton of test information out there, but looking at a black and white test chart doesn't seem to

mean much - I don't have any pictures of test charts hanging up on my walls...

 

I'm using a d80 now, with the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses, plus a couple of primes. I don't feel like I need

the speed that the higher grade zooms provide - I'm fine with using the fast primes for low light stuff. When

I'm using the kit lenses, I'm either in daylight or using a few flashes, strobist-style (or both). Would I

notice much of a difference at f/5.6-f/11 if I upgraded to the higher end lenses?

 

I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison of the same scene, shot with different lenses on the same camera. Is

that out there somewhere?

 

 

Thanks!