rick_helmke1

I've always thought any F2 is the finest 35mm camera made and the F4s is right behind it. I have 2 of each and will keep using as appropriate with my digital bodies. There is nothing I shoot that I can't cover with those two film bodies. Keep 'em and use 'em I say.

 

Rick H.

Mark a test roll or two is in order here. You are on the right track, my solution is to shoot in manual mode and use TTL. Set the flash to expose about a stop under the correct exposure and start shooting. As long as the flash is a stop under your fill will look good in all but the deepest shade. Shooting in an auto mode should work as well, I just tend to stay in manual most of the time.

 

Rick H.

I haven't found anything I can't do with a DX camera and get good results and the 17-55/2.8 is an exceptional lens. Having been where you are, that lens along with an 80-200/2.8, a good 300 and a pair of D300's will do the job. You'll also need plenty of memory, an SB800 or 900 and a back up for it. There will be some software needed and assorted small items. A good bag and some camera straps that aren't neon advertisements for Nikon. I'm sure I've left several things out but you'll figure it out as you go. Happy shopping.

 

Rick H.

Based on the OP's requirements I'll reccomend a Nikkormat FT2 or FT3, an F2 which is the best 35mm ever made, an F4s or an F3.

 

Rick H.

<p>Never heard of an N-3 or N-100 but if your are talking F3 and F100 those are both outstanding camera bodies. They will offer many years of good service as well as versatility to do nearly anything you could want to do as a photographer.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

Thanks, I'll check those out.

 

Rick H.

<p> Very nice work. I've got three of the Sillette series, one of them in my bag now with some of my last Kodachrome. Heading for the Smokies soon, I think I'll take it with me.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>Are ink sets still available for the Epson 2200 printer? I just found my old one and thought I might try and get it running but am not sure on availability for something that old. Thanks.<br>

<br />Rick H.</p>

I'm another one of those who has no real dominant side. I'm right eye dominant and shoot guns and cameras right handed. I swing a bat and a golf club right handed but throw, eat and write left handed. Except I roll a bowling ball right handed. I'm confused....

 

Rick H.

I've taken a few courses and taught a few. From basic B&W through the color processes and Photoshop I am nearly all self taught. That's meant I only learned the things I wanted to learn and was not required to gain experience in other areas. The result is that I often shoot things like weddings as though they were news events involving law enforcement and my portrait work tends to be gritty and informal. It works for some clients, not so much for others. Rick H.

Lee based on what you listed I would pick up a second body before you shoot another wedding. Your current glass will do until you can upgrade a bit but if your camera quits you have big problems. You could get a D70, 80, 90 or probably a D200 for that amount. I found a very clean D100 for $200 that is outdated but is a great backup. Next is another flash. Then better glass as you can afford it, a 17-55/2.8 and a 70-200 or 80-200/2.8 will do most everything you need. There are plenty more ways to spend your money but I am a big believer in simplicity.

 

Rick H.

Hands down my favorite camera body. It never gets in my way which is my definition of a well designed tool.

 

Rick H.

I would get the 80-200/2.8 over the 70-200. The G lenses will I think work on the F100 but won't on the N90s. I also much prefer the image results from the 80-200.

 

Rick H.

I haven't checked prices lately but a single SP monolight with an umbrella mounted high should do the job, 2 would be better and should fit your budget. They aren't top of the line but have decent features and get the job done. Look at lighting on the B&H web site.

 

Rick H.

If you sell the used Nikon glass and buy new 3rd party gear you will end up with not much more money in your pocket than you started with. You will then have new but used 3rd party glass that is no better than your Nikon stuff and will re-sell for less than your current gear. That's a net loss.

 

Rick H.

As someone who has seriously contemplated the same idea, ask yourself why you want an MFA? If you want to become a fine art photographer then take some courses, study and work on photography. The Master's degree in most disciplines is something you will need if you plan to teach or move up in a work environment. Certainly a satisfying personal achievement it will also be time consuming and costly. I want to pursue one but haven't found the right combination of teaching philosophy, location, price and structure. Of course I will have to adapt myself to the program but for now I am still looking. Best of luck as you pursue yours.

 

Rick H.

A news photographer, hands down. It's something different most of the time although it isn't always interesting but that's part of the challenge. Good or bad, my name goes under it. I'll never get tired of sports and as I call it, mischief, murder and mayhem. I'm getting paid to ride all over the place and make photographs. There are plenty of worse jobs and I've had some of them.

 

Rick H.

The FM bodies are good, no doubt about it but I prefer the F2 by a large margin. More capable in some ways, better build, it's always been a top choice for me. Stick to AI or newer lenses and use whatever version you want. I have a motor-driven F2AS and another with the first photomic head. Both work well and are compatible with all of my MF lenses and all but one of my AF's.

 

Rick H.

Michael I'll be the first one to say that Nikon's 17-55/2.8 is one of the best Nikkors I've ever used. At $1600 it ought to be. Still, the laws of economics, like physics, must be obeyed. The OP said he was on a budget. Been there, done that. Get the best glass you can afford and the Tamron is a pretty good lens at about 1/3 the price. Gives him something to work towards later on.

 

Rick H.

Dave how is it a compromise? I've been using one or another version of PS for a long time but don't quite understand how Capture will give me better quality. Not arguing, just trying to learn something. Thanks. Rick H.

That said, I would go with the Tamron. I always prefer a faster lens, generally it will be more useful over a variety of situations.

 

Rick H.

I've decided to make NEF's my standard now as jpeg's aren't as necessary to my work as they used to be. Right now I'm shooting a D1X, a D100 and a D200. Can NEF's be read in CS2 or CS3 on any or better yet all of these bodies? I have both and am about to set up a computer strictly for imaging use. Or will I have to spring for Nikon or other software? Thanks.

 

Rick H.

I'd keep the glass you have and upgrade when you can. Give some thought to the D200 with a battery grip. I've been very happy with mine and it didn't turn into junk the day the D300 was released. My D100 and D1X still run just fine as well. Right now I feel no need at all to move up unless it is to a full frame body so I would say you have a huge number of decent options without blowing the budget.

 

Rick H.

A couple of other things have occured to me...I always say that the 17-55 and 80-200, both 2.8, cover 90 percent of everything I do and that's accurate. You might consider 3rd party 17-50 and 80-200 2.8's like Sigma, Tamron or Tokina. Good stuff for much less money. Also, while I mentioned the D300 you could look at the D200 also. I have been very happy with mine. There's a lot to be said for carrying 2 or 3 lenses instead of 5 or 6. You could also budget in a second smaller body like a D40. Just a thought. Let us know what you decide, I'd be interested in knowing. Rick H.

I've been using 283 and 285 flashes on my N90s' for many years without problem. Camera on manual mode, shutter speed 250 or slower. Set the sensor to the f/stop using the colors on the side of the flash, it works quite well. Enjoy yourself, it's a good camera. I carry one as part of my go-everywhere kit and it just keeps on running.

 

Rick H.