paulo_bizarro

Where to draw the line? I don't know, but personally if I ruin a shot, I prefer to go back and try it again. I also prefer to use B&W film instead of de-saturate in Photoshop.

 

<p>

 

The thing is, market is tough, and digital enhancement/alteration to correct the photographer's mistakes will often make an image more saleable. And easier and cheaper than having to going back.

 

<p>

 

Also, we are on the verge of seeing the introduction of 35mm hybrid cameras, which can take both digital and conventional film cartridges (the latest Photokina was heavy on digital imaging).

 

<p>

 

Sound and image have gone digital quite a while ago, photographers still resist the trend, which is right and which is wrong? The thing is, it is still possible to "fake" or "create" a composite image even without digital manipulation (I have seen such an example in a new E100VS brochure, by in camera masking). But it is so much easier with computers...

One 35mm SLR and 5 prime lenses: 20, 28, 50, 135, and 180 macro. I only carry two or three lenses at a time, plus tripod or monopod. Flash mostly for fill in portraits and some macro. Film includes E100SW and E200 (for pushing). Also lens hoods, spirit level, cleaning kit, waterproof pens, small notepad, spare batteries, etc.

 

<p>

 

Several bags, from Billimgham to Lowepro.

Well, it's nice to hear that the competition is finally catching up, after so many years of lagging behind. Hope is the last thing to die, so some day Nikon users will have IS too:-)

I have used E200 at 400 and 800 ISO, and the results are truly excellent.

There is a CF to set ECF to 11 points only, which would make it a lot easier. On the other hand, 45 focusing points in predictive mode will no doubt make the life of sports and wildlife photogs easier.

Check http://www.gitzo.com

Hasselblad have just released the Hasselblad XPan, theur first in 35mm format. Besides 24x36, it does true panoramic format, without any masking, in 24x65. Metering is centre weighted TTL, performs bracketing, and uses two lenses: 45 f/4 and 90 f/4. seems like a light weight alternative.

 

<p>

 

BTW, I am quoting this from a portuguese photo magazine, so I don't have any websites (yesterday I posted the info on the new EOS and EF lenses, but it was deleted because I was not able to provide web sites. I suppose I was speculating...).

I find the Orion (Lowepro) very good and well padded. I carry in it a 1n with a 50 1.4 attached, a 20 2.8 (or 28 1.8), and a 135 2. This is my default kit, and the pack is comfortable for me.

Glen,

 

<p>

 

I have extensively used the 100 macro in the past, until I was offered a good dealon the 180 macro. I am very disciplined when it comes to shooting macro, I have developed what I think is a sound technique, with tripod and focusing rail assemblage, and MLU.

 

<p>

 

My results have showed me that the 180 macro is optically better than the 100 macro, using the same film and similar subjects (namely flowers). This is true for colour rendition, which I find to be more accurate.

 

<p>

 

I am by no means flaming the 100 macro, a truly excellent lens, which provided me with excellent results. I am just stating, from my experience, that the 180 macro is capable of even better results. Is it so strange or difficult to accept it?

Reference Novoflex rails, I recently bought the Castel Mini, which I use with my EF 180 macro. Smooth operation and easy too, so I am quite happy with it.

I have used both lenses you mention, and no doubt the 180 is a clear winner, for the reasons stated in previous posts. Also, it is a lot easier to handle and work with, because the lenght of the lens does not change. But more important, optical quality is even better than with the 100 macro.

 

<p>

 

I find AF useful as well, but one has to get familiar with the range switch. It is an expensive lens, but then it is TC compatible, it has a very useful tripod collar, it has fast and silent AF, smooth manual focus, and so on.

 

<p>

 

If money is tight at the moment, do not buy the 100 macro, instead save for this lens and wait until you can afford it. In the meantime, a 50 1.8 and a 25 tube will give you excellent results.

I have done macro work with a 50 and a 100mm lenses. I ended up getting the EF 180 macro, it is just superb and comfortable to work with. I suppose the Nikon equivalent is the 200mm macro, so this is the one I would recommend, based in my own experience. It gives you a larger working distance (important for insects), and a stronger popping out effect.

Torsten,

 

<p>

 

You already have three superb lenses, so why change? Lenses make the image, not cameras. A slow zoom lens will force you to use flash indoors, and it requires experience and good gut feeling to obtain nice flash exposures.

 

<p>

 

On the other hand, your 50 1.2 will allow you to get beautiful images of your baby (full bodyed ones). I would add to your system something like the 85 1.4 Nikkor, for more tighter portraits.

 

<p>

 

I use EOS, but do not make the mistake of changing. After a while, you will miss your higher quality primes.

Mark,

 

<p>

 

It's funny you are asking this, because I have just returned from a one week vacation, where I have managed (as always) to squeeze in some photo errands. I have carried one body and three lenses: 28 1.8, 50 1.4, and 135 2 (plus a flashgun and extension tube). I ended up using the 135 the most, even for landscapes, the reason being that I can get more compelling images with this lens, focusing in on what it is really the mood of a particular place.

 

<p>

 

Not all places offer the chance of capturing grand vistas with a wide angle. When I had the 70-200 2.8 I found out that I was using it mostly around 100-135mm, so the next move was pretty natural.

You forgot the most important elemens, the lens and the photographer! With the same lens, yes. Of course there are exceptions, and the photographer has to know how to fine tune exposure values with less inteligent metering systems (hey, even with smart ones for that matter!).

 

<p>

 

Also, the 8 fps in predictive mode of the F5 will probably increase the number of your tokens, but you can do the same with follow focus or zone focus, so...

Lloyd,

 

<p>

 

It is hard to envisage the "70-200 L + 2x converter + close-up" being more compact than the 100 macro, but I might be wrong:-)

 

<p>

 

And with all due respect, I couldn't care less for John Shaw's recommendations. I know the above combination can provide excellent results, but nothing can beat a true macro lens for macro work. And mind you, most of my favourite macro shots are taken at larger apertures, in order to isolate the subject from its surroundings. This is only effective with good bokeh lenses.

1. Stay away from too contrasty films;

2. Use f/16 at 1/film speed as a starting guide and work from there;

3. Focusing is not too critical, if the subject stays more or less parallel to you when jumping, so Servo AF will do fine. Use automatic focus point selection, making sure that you start focus with the central sensor. Or you could use CF 4 set at 2 (if you have a 1N) to use focus lock.

Well, whichever way you go, with that sort of mentality, 2 or 3 years from now you will be changing systems again. Anyway, there is AF speed (time it takes for the body+lens to AF), and then there is Predictive AF performance, dealing with accuracy and how many fps are sharp in predictive servo mode.

 

<p>

 

I would never change systems over such a close call. You can always get the 1NRS.

"By comparison, the 100 macro (or even the 180 macro) doesn't seem as attractive. The only advantage of a macro is the convenience of going from infinity to 1:1 without accessories. The zoom + closeup will go to 1:1.16 if you add a 2x converter (which you would probably want anyway or already have)."

 

<p>

 

Am I missing something here? A true macro lens will give you the best results, period. Way better than a 70-200 + 2x converter + closeup lens. The 100 macro with the ET 25 will give you 1:1.41 magnification.

I don't know if they are character builders, but they do allow me to take great photos by providing the right support for my equipment. Also, Gitzo have been making tripods for 80 years, with considerable success, so they must know what they are doing. I have no problem whatsoever with using my tripod (G80, a special edition to celebrate their 80th anniversary, series 3 tripod), and I even have a Gitzo 1376 ball head (a sacrilege for most of the people on this forum).

 

<p>

 

There are a couple of things that will help you improve the handling of a Gitzo tripod:

 

<p>

 

1. It is not necessary to fully tighten the leg collars to held them in place.

 

<p>

 

2. Disengage the said collars in the correct order when mounting/unmounting the tripod, after all, it says so in the instructions, right?:-)

 

<p>

 

3. It is not necessary to tighten too much the centre column and head, when it stops and stays in place, no need to force it, it will only make it more difficult to untighten it.

 

<p>

 

So you see, it is really simple. Of course not everybody is happy with Gitzo, that is why you have to try it before you buy it. Me, I know I will never use any other tripods, Gitzos are perfect for my needs.

My experience:

 

<p>

 

1. Canon's 100 macro gives me excellent results, not surprisingly.

2. I also use my 50 1.4 with extension tube EF 25 (bought used), also gives me great results.

Hi Lance,

 

<p>

 

Why don't you follow the same method as before? Meaning if you have compared Provia to Sensia, why don't you compare E200 with Elite Chrome 200? In the end you will have to do it, unless you have blind faith in other people's opinions:-)

 

<p>

 

Just recently I have compared the new Elite Chrome 100 to E100SW, and I was disapointed with the results. So no savings here, I am afraid:-)

Actually, I usually photograph sunsets with the lens as wide open as camera shutter allows (hurray for 1/8000 sec shutter speeds:-)). I have found out that the results are softer thus conveying a more tranquil mood to the scene. Hey, but that's just me!

 

<p>

 

Spot meter from the sky adjacent to the sun, but excluding it, and results will be fine. Oh yes, and use slide film, prints get washed out.

Amrit,

 

<p>

 

I am sure your question is well intended. I am not going to answer it because I do not own any of those lenses. This is just to comment on the general tone of the replies you have got so far.

 

<p>

 

It amazes me that the people who bash empty pocket photographers when they ask if the XXXXXX f/8 zoom is good enough, actually also bash apparently wealthier photographers who actually have the money to buy expensive lenses!

 

<p>

 

Is it a sin to own both Nikon F5 and EOS 1N cameras and then ask for which 300 mm lens is best in both systems? You don't have to be a Maharaja to buy those, or filthy rich for that matter, all you need to do is sell pictures. So all of you Nature gurus and well experienced/accomplished photographers/users of the Big Glass just hide your envy and try to come up with a decent reply, will you?

Cliff,

 

<p>

 

You may laugh all you want... It was your mistake to buy the 1276 in the first place, wishing for it to support heavy lenses. It does the job for lighter ones though. I am sorry you have wasted your money, but you should have got more information before wasting it, apparently. Actually, it is very easy, Gitzo have a nice web site with all the specs, so before I bought my ball head, I contacted them for a full brochure. That way, I didn't waste any money when I bought the 1376, which is plenty support for me (I will never need a 600/4).

 

<p>

 

It just seems sometimes that this forum is sponsored by Arca Swiss:-)