david_tolcher

Sorry - for those that know this is probably a dumb question but....

When I had an MD4 I refurbished the battery pack myself by buying the

cells and there were options but no lithiums. Has anyone / does

anyone refurbish D1x packs with lithium cells ?

 

Thanks

 

Dave

Main reason for me is size/weight (smaller/less) and battery independence (much better). All other things being equal give me my F5 vs the F3/F2.

I had one briefly, didnt like it. Not as good quality as 20-35 zoom. More chromatic abherration and lots of ghosting if shooting into the light. Suspect I had a bad sample so test it carefully......

Hi Nico, the 20-35 is my standard lens on a D100. I havent had a big enough issue with colour fringing for me to go looking for reasons to be dissatisfied. If I shoot into a strong light then at A3+ enlargements you maybe able to see a small amount on twigs in trees for e.g. but flare tends to be a bigger issue under those circumstances. The only thing I would say about the 20-35 is that it is neither quite long enough or quite wide enough to use as a standard lens on the D100. A smaller 28 or 35 prime is something I am considering as it is also a big lens for the coverage you get.

 

Dave

Ok, here goes.... I suspect that we are into perspective based on the image size in the frame rather than one of the laws of optics. All three posts taken with a D100 and 20-35 nikon AFD zoom. If you take a picture from the same spot with 20 and 35mm lens, then crop the 20 to the same view as the 35 then the perspective, spacial arrangement etc is identical (pictures 1 and 2) - I agree. If however you walk forward to use the 20mm lens to give the same content then the spacial arrangement is noticably different (picture 3). So if you use a 14mm lens to get the same content in the frame as a 20mm then you will get the perspective of the 14mm lens, not the 20. images are 1,2,3 top to bottom.

The point being made is a very good one as I have found with the macro end. I used a 180/200 micro on film and loved the perspective, spatial arrangement of objects etc in the results. I bought a 105mm lens for the D100 expecting to get similar results and working distance. It just isnt so - I have reverted to the 180mm lens on the D100 and now just have to accept some slight issues with extra working distance and need for higher shutter speeds. The answer to some extent with your 20mm lens is take x steps backwards because I could see how a 12-24 would not give the same feel to the image at 14mm.

 

Dave

I have just done my first weekends serious nature photography with

the D100 using RAW and have approx 100 images to review. With slides

I would do a quick sort on the light box followed by a final sort on

the projector. Shooting JPEG allowed some amount of quick preview by

running slideshow or equivalent but I am struggling for a quick

evaluation of NEFs. The pain of having to sharpen each one to see

what is in focus or not as the image is always soft out of the camera

will not be sustainable with a long shoot and several hundred

pictures to review. Has anyone got any suggestions as to how to

overcome the issue ?

 

Many thanks

 

Dave

It should be :-

 

http://www.nikon-euro.com/kdb/download/manuals/film/f5rm.htm

 

Space removed after the nikon-.

 

Dave

I should have said that it is a common viper - called an Adder in the UK, dont know why......

I recently replaced my 200mm micro nikkor (AI version) with a Tamron

180mm F3.5 macro lens. Very pleased with the results as you can see

from the attached. Lens is very sharp, nice out of focus details.

Taken on a D100 at 200ASA at around F5.6 / F8.<div></div>

I recently bought one and the results at wider apertures really are stunning. I have owned Zeiss 85 F1.4 and the nikon 105 1.8 - this is at least equal to the zeiss. Really nice thing is the autofocus is really accurate so the wide aperture is useable - with an F5 and a D100 on CF I get a much higher proportion of things in focus where I want it. Very pleased.

 

Dave

If that still doesnt clinch it then the damp finger test is pretty foolproof. A damp finger sticks slightly to the side which you print on.

 

Dave

I have owned all of the 105mm nikon lens at some point or other for macro purposes. The 105mm F4 micro has been the sharpest of all of the lenses. Going back over 15 years the K25 slides from this lens still stand head and shoulders above others for sharpness. I was seduced by the extra stop of the MF F2.8 when I returned to the Nikon fold but it is clearly not better IMO. Now I have the 105 AFD because of a chip need on a d100 but I am very tempted to buy another 105mm F4 and have it converted because the AFD is such an unsatisfying lens to use in MF and isnt as sharp.

 

Dave

I have the 20-35 and use it on a F5 and a d100. It is the only zoom lens I have bought and kept. I couldnt afford a 17-35 so went with the 20-35 at 1/2 the price. It is as good quality, if not better than any prime wideangle from Nikon that I have owned. Only draw backs are the flare which is much easier to induce and slower AF on a D100. Assuming zoom is the answer then I think this comes down to money - if you can afford the 17-35, buy it, if not the 20-35 will more than meet the quality demands of either film or digital IMO. You could buy a new 28 and 35mm lens and still have change for a s/h 20-35, let alone a 17-35.

My 950 is very particular about print head alignment and needs doing regularly for best results. If you havent done it after installation of the cartridges then I would suspect that as a major cause.

 

Also suggest doing the nozzle check as I did have an almost new head with a blocked nozzle that couldnt be moved by deep cleaning, Canon replaced it immediately.

 

Best regards

 

Dave

Hi there, interesting view on use of flash but I have given it up completely for insect work which is why I now push provia to 200. I followed the Shaw/butterfly bracket route for some years. The above butterfly was taken at F8/F11 at 125th handheld squeezing 250th if I could and use F8. Failure rate is much higher because of the smaller dof but the backgrounds tend to be much nicer. This is one factor why I am trying the D100 route as I can get more dof for the same relative image size and probably get away with 125th / F8 more often by using a 105mm micro rather than the 200mm. You can see some more of this type of work at www.btinternet.com/~davidjt

 

Dave<div></div>

Sorry - picture didnt load for some reason<div></div>

Arnabm, excellent as usual. I personally have poor experience with 100F, has a green/yellow cast, poor control of contrast and is awful pushed to 200 - all characteristics descibed are worse, particularly colour cast. Provia F pushed to 200 is now my preferred choice - bit more punch than at 100 making it very nice for insects. Attached is summer favorite taken at 100asa on a 200mm AI micro nikkor (non af version).

 

Best regards

 

Dave

I have the 20-35 and use it as a 'standard' lens on both a D100 and an F5. Have not used the 18-35 but so cant compare. I already find an F2.8 viewfinder quite dark compared to 1.4/2 prime lenses which could be a factor for e.g. indoor use. In terms of quality - I detect no fringing or lack of sharpness from the zoom in quite critical use, suspect not a practical issue. Provia slides have excellent contrast and sharpness, as do the digital files from the D100. I would always go with the 20-35, it is a pro spec lens, the build quality is stunning, minimal distortion in all except the most demanding situations and the quality of output is as good as any other lense I own. It does flare relatively easily as one might expect and especially with the L37 filter it appears. They are relatively good value now also.

 

David Tolcher

UK

Sorry should have added that the nicest paper is Ilford Smooth pearl A3+. I cut in half with a medical scalpel and steel rule.

I have been printing panoramics on A3+ paper halved longways on a 950i. Very effective and quick. Use the custom paper setting in the printer driver and set to dimensions appropriate to A3+ split in half.

Arnab, thanks for your kind words. I have had my D100 a couple of weeks now and can see how much cleaner the results are from close up work. I have been using either and F5 or an F3HP with micro nikkors/tamron 90mm for some years now for insects/flowers (LF for landscapes). My 'failure rate' for film probably accounts for 30-33 out of a roll whether that be because all the duplicates are as sharp as the first of a sequence or all are duds... Failure rate for the D100 is the same but I am not paying for the other 33 frames. It certainly isnt an F5 (no surprise there) and landscapes dont seem to be its forte. AF is so slow with the 20-35 nikkor compared to the F5 and hunts badly. Exposure is more hit and miss than the F5 - requires more thought.. The best part is that you can review your work instantly, for e.g. I had the tulips out in print within 3 mins of taking them while it was still set-up so I could adjust and retake. The only reason for not getting one for bug work IMO would be lack of cash, the lack of metering with non AF lenses is a real pain as there are some lovely lenses that would be great with the D100 (35mm F1.4, 50mm F1.2).<div></div>

Arnab et al, great pics ! From previous debates I went ahead and bought a D100, first example of a still life as its too wet and cold for bugs here in UK. Nikon 200mm F4 AI (chipped), D100.<div></div>

Thanks for the quick answers, I had never seen anything like it - adjusted the diopters, rustled in cupboards for glasses etc etc... Then just felt an idiot :-)

I have just bought a D100 and was on the verge of sending it straight

back. I put a lens on it while the battery was charging and found the

viewfinder dark and was completely unable to focus manually. Put the

battery in and the viewfinder is bright, clear and easy to focus

manually. I assumed it was a standard viewfinder as it has a mirror

but maybe not - can someone explain why ?

 

Many thanks

 

Dave