trevans

<p>Yeah I think I'm just SOL for now.<br>

FWIW Vista Ultimate 64 bit.<br>

Thanks anyhow.</p>

<p>Maybe you guys know the answer, but I suspect that the camera is also applying a custom curve to bump the contrast in the midtones. Might this also be contributing? I'm looking at the point where the robe crosses the shadow on the wood for reference.</p>

<p>So I've got a laptop and an attached second monitor. I'm opening up some pictures in ACR (PS CS3) and I'm noticing wildly different colors on my laptop vs my outboard monitor. Is there any sort of quick-and-dirty calibration I can do to<br>

1) make them match</p>

<p>2) verify they are sort-of correct</p>

<p>Is this possible? I know, I really need one of those little screen spider things and that's on the list at some point, but for this morning where my resources are limited to the world-wide-internets, is there anything I can do?<br>

My monitor's colors are much more saturated and bright (more red for sure) than the laptop. At times I think the laptop is more accurate (just a hunch, I have no empirical proof) but I really have no way of knowing.</p>

<p>Anyone?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Here's a shot using Lomo's redscale film I took in Philadelphia on a rainy day.<br>

The effects of the flipped film are obvious here. YMMV. BTW This was exposed right-on, no up- or down-rating of the film.</p>

<p>The D90 has a depth-of-field preview button, whereas the D5000 does not.</p>

<p>Worth mentioning that, in my view, the real strength of the 51 point (Multi-CAM 3500DX) system on the D300 versus 11 point (Multi-CAM 1000) system of the D90 is that the 3500 system has 15 cross-type sensors to the 1000's single type. Ever notice how only the middle AF sensor on your older camera seems to work acceptably well in low-light? It's a cross-type.</p>

<p>It's the D-Lighting. I borrowed a D60 while my D40 was in the shop, and this was so annoying it was the first setting change I made. Turn it off. If you really want a D-Lightful (sorry) picture later, use ViewNX or adjust curves in any of several good graphics programs (Photoshop, GIMP, Paint.NET...).</p>

<p>Ah yes, thank you Shun. I knew someone would know this.</p>

<p>Do you need it to control more CLS strobes? Then it's the 800 or 900 for you.</p>

<p>Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the 800 is the only one that will work with every digital SLR AND most modern Nikon film SLRs. So if that's a selling point, there you go.</p>

<p>What's a lot to spend? $200? $300? more?</p>

<p>David,<br>

Having rented the 24-70 and owning the 17-55, I'd say they're both fantastic lenses which have their place. You pretty much summed everything up, and your line:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not quit as wide as I had hoped to get.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pretty much means, to me, you've talked yourself into the 17-55. You've already got an 80-200, so what are you waiting for? :) You also said you just got the D300 and don't plan to upgrade to FX anytime soon, so there's another reason the 17-55 won't hold you back.<br>

You can always sell it. The pro-grade lenses hold value well, if you take care of it.<br>

Just get it. Or if you're really that torn, see about renting/borrowing them somewhere.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for the complements on the fruit... they're actually peaches :) I think the saturation was cranked up on the D40. Original picture, and lots more from the farmer's market set: <a href="

<p>Good morning everybody! Lovely posts so far... I love this forum, and especially for this reason!<br>

Some specifics I'd like to mention:<br>

<strong>@Per-Christian Nilssen</strong> - Congratulations, beautiful shot, beautiful subject. I love the sparkle in her eyes.<br /> <strong>@Alejandro Held</strong> - Striking! I love it! I can almost feel the needles... ouch!<br /> <strong>@Mike O'Day </strong> - wow... is that with a LensBaby? Your picture alone makes me want one. I love love love the gazebo in focus, with the focus along the shrubs leading your eye through the pic.<br /> <strong>@Janne Kaakinen</strong> - Gorgeous composition. Lovely colors. This is top notch! Congratulations.<br /> <strong>@Dieter Schaefer</strong> - Awesome candid shot. I love the hand-rolled cigarette.<br /> <strong>@Oskar Ojala </strong> - Where in the world did you see that? Haha<br /> <strong>@Wayne Wrights</strong> - Love the colors and the compression of the foreground and background. It works with the layers very well here. Also, I really like how the sun seems to be set in line with the vees the hills make. Really well done.<br /> <strong>@Paul Nance</strong> - Congratulations! She's already got quite a lot of hair!<br /> <strong>@Matt Laur</strong> - I look forward to every one of your posts, and this one is no exception. The only downside is now I can't post my cicada shot as it pales in comparison! Thank you for the detailed description as well.<br /> <strong>@Scott Pogorelc</strong> - I was down in Athens GA several years ago and they were playing their hometown. Unfortunately, there were no tickets available! Looks like it was a great time.<br /> <strong>@Elliot Bernstein</strong> - Wow, very nice! I'm surprised the surface isn't more rippled than it is.<br /> <strong>@Justin Weiss</strong> - What striking blue eyes! Well done on capturing the moment and expression there.</p>

<p>This was taken at the Headhouse Farmer's Market in Old City Philadelphia. They had a most amazing selection of fruit... I had to get some. :)</p>

<p>Nikon D40 + Nikkor 17-55mm<br>

@55mm, f4.5, 1/80s, ISO200</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3438/3764773830_557d7f43a5_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd keep the 18-105VR, and put the $150-200 towards a <strong>35</strong> mm f/1.8. The 35mm is much more usable on a D90 than the 50mm f/1.8. Eventually, you will get a nifty 50, but on DX cameras, a 35mm is much nicer.<br /> The 18-105VR gets very positive tests everywhere, and I've held one a few times: it feels like a proper lens, and results look plenty sharp (the 18-200 is optically not better, in my view). So, it's got a plastic mount... it's not like that's going to break. Metal mounts may look nicer, but with normal use and care there is no difference. In fact, the 18-105VR is THE bargain lens, and underappreciated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here, here. I agree with Wouter. There's not a whole lot of difference in the lense you've got versus the 18-200 (they are both mighty fine) but the 35/1.8 or any other fast-aperture gives you wildly different capabilities. Why spend the money on something that's not all-together that much different? It's like upgrading from a Corolla to a Camry. Get something different. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That brute force discharge also causes arc over inside the cap.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Does it? Is that only endemic to electrolytic caps or all of them? I'm an EE myself but just a youngin' and haven't heard of this before.</p>

<p>I've found Calumet's prices to be a touch higher than either B&H or Adorama, but anytime I've gone in there they are always very helpful and have a good selection of stuff (I went in for film... they were the only ones in Philly stocking Provia). If it's hard to find, it might be worth paying the tax/slight premium. That's the law of supply and demand. :)</p>

<p>50mm/1.8 or 50mm/1.4 plus 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>My 2 cents...<br>

I have the Nikon 17-55/2.8. I love the thing. You will not find it for $500 even used.<br>

I had the Tamron 17-50/2.8 for about a week. I was extremely impressed with the lens. It's a first-class consumer lens (and I don't mean "consumer" in a bad way, it's just plastic but very good plastic). It had a nice amount of heft in the hand, the fit was tight, no wobbles anywhere, the thing felt great. I sent it back because I located the Nikon for a great deal and, after playing with them both, decided the Nikon was what I really wanted. Had I not found a Nikon on The List That Craig Built, I would have been quite happy with the Tammy. The only real gripe I had was the autofocus speed and accuracy in low-light was not as good as the Nikon, but it's not AF-S, either. It's got a built-in motor ("whirrr"). Not loud or annoying, but not as fast, quiet, and accurate as AF-S.</p>

<p>Anyway, I really think the Tamron fits the bill here if you want its focal length. You mentioned wanting something longer... have you considered the 16-85 VR? It's a bit over your range but it might fit the bill nicely. The only issue is (as always) it's an expensive lens for being 5.6 on the long end. It's not a problem if you want to do landscapes, but I find a 2.8 aperture is really nice for portraits (candids even) for throwing the background way out of focus and making it less distracting.</p>

<p>I whole-heartedly agree with Jeannean... I have the 55-200VR myself and I love it. In your situation, I would probably want some more reach.</p>

<p>To give you some idea, this past week on vacation I was shooting pictures of people wakeboarding behind a boat (with about 30' off the line I think). So they were about 60-80 feet away from me at any given time. On my D40, at 200mm, they filled the entire frame when I held it vertically, and when I held it normally (horizontally) I zoomed out to about 135 to make sure I could frame them.</p>

<p>The VR is priceless! The sun was bright, so even if I had a fancy 2.8 tele I would have been using an aperture of 5.6-8 anyway (I took most at 5.6 to prevent this consumer zoom from changing apertures on me... ISO200 and shutters of 640-1000, shot Manual, depending on what the clouds were doing), but the VR <strong>really </strong> helped with the bouncing of the boat (even though I was in the back right infront of the tie tower).</p>

<p>I'll try to get some examples of the wakeboarding up on Flickr soon, but we had a storm pass through SW Pennsylvania the other night and it fried my internet service terminal. I'll let you know if you're interested.</p>

<p>So yes I think the 70-300 may be a good choice for you, as it will give you a little more reach and you will be (presumably) further away from your subjects. Keep in mind also that since you have the D60, you've got more pixels to work with and there is more opportunity for cropping/enlarging sections of a shot you get if you're alittle further away than you'd like.</p>

<p>Enjoy the cruise!! Please come back and show us pictures!</p>

<p>--Edit--<br>

Another very, very good option listed by Jeanean is rentals... seriously, if you want to try out a nice lens, spend $100-200 on a rental and get yourself a nice toy for the trip. You'll have a great time, trust me. Might look into the fixed-focal length faster telephotos (Nikon makes all sorts of nice 2.8 VR teles... 200mm, 300mm, 400mm). If you don't forsee yourself needing a telephoto in the future except for this trip, this is a good option. Good luck!<br>

PS I've personally used LensRentals.com and was very satisfied with both the service and price.</p>

<p>FYI the D90 can be rented at lensrentals.com<br>

(I don't work for them, just a satisfied customer)</p>

<p>I'm with Eric, get the SB-400 first.</p>

<p>Can't do pretty flower pictures with the kit lens? Bullox! The kit lens focuses EXTREMELY close and I use it for Macro much more than my 55-200VR.<br /> I think if you buy a non-VR, you will have a hard time selling it once you're done with it. It's not THAT much more to get the VR and it's sorta like trying to sell otherwise-identical trucks, one with 2WD and one with 4WD. Sure, the 2WD carries stuff, but it doesn't hold its value as much and well, why get 2WD when 4WD is available? :)</p>

<p>I bought the D40 + kit 18-55, 55-200 non-VR (traded it in on the VR), 55-200VR, SB-400, 35/1.8, SB-800, and 17-55/2.8, in that order. It's amazing the difference the flash makes indoors. Seriously, unless you're printing big, just shoot the SB-400 horizontally, bounced, and crop the shots.</p>

<p>The 55-200VR I really only found useful outdoors, and the SB-400 only really useful indoors (or on the occasion where you need fill flash like Eric said).</p>

<p>Just think about what you're going to use it for the most.</p>

<p>Oh and I use the little 35/1.8 all the time!</p>

<p>I sent in my 55-200 VR to Nikon repair, thinking it was completely destroyed and a total loss, and they only charged $130 to fix it.<br>

For some idea of what happened:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevans/sets/72157618716718307/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevans/sets/72157618716718307/</a></p>

 

<p>Fair enough.</p>

<p>Ted, it just depends on what it's worth to you. What do you mean by very occasional? And what is your budget like? And what might you be taking pictures of?</p>

<p>Joe - I'd say the difference in the two is worth paying for VR. It can't be that much difference now. I bought my D40 kit with the 55-200 Non-VR and, after using it a few days, traded it in on the VR. Best $50 I've spent on my camera kit, no question. At the time I was not good enough to determine whether the optical quality was any different, but as the VR is newer I suspect it's also incrementally better in the optics.</p>

<p>Robert Gulotta gave you the best advice you'll see. Ask those who are already doing what you want to what they are using, take detailed notes, and then weigh your options/goals against your budget.<br>

CC Chang has a good point about the D5000 body... In fact, get it with just a normal kit lens (since you'll want one for normal shooting) then spend the rest in a good quality, fast telephoto lens. VR won't do you much good since you're trying to shoot at fast shutter speeds anyhow, so look into a telephoto with an aperture of 2.8 or larger (lower numbers = larger aperture). Nikon made one that was (I believe) an 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S that would work well, in my opinion. AF-S is nice because the focus is fast and virtually silent; also, it's a requirement for autofocus if you plan to use the D40/D40x/D60/D5000 series.<br>

As a side note, you said you're a newbie, and somehow you have a 10 Year subscriber badge. How did that happen? (Admins)</p>

<p>You can get used 55-200 VRs for less than $175 easily. I have one and I love it.</p>