joel_b.1

<p>Thank you, Mihai. It does seem like that lens is providing very good results for people and I am very tempted by it.<br>

I would love to see a comparison between the new 28mm 1.8 and the 28mm 2.8 ais. I wonder if the older lens still holds up on the D800/E.</p>

<p>Thank you, Ilkka. Of course I am aware of the 14-24 and its strong reputation. I left it off the list because I don't need 2.8; I don't need 14mm; I'd prefer not to have to lug the monster around; and I'd prefer to spend 1000 rather than 2000. For those reasons, I had thought that if I was going to get a zoom for this, as opposed to a prime, I'd get the 16-35. But I am sure that the 14-24 is excellent, and I thank you for your response.</p>

<p>I like to shoot architectural interiors at around 28mm. I like everything to be in focus. I've read a lot about the lenses below, but most of the comparisons I read are about the lens's extremes: How they perform wide open or stopped way down, how zooms perform on the longest or shortest ends, etc. I'm interested in how these lenses perform at their ideal apertures -- 5.6 or 7.1 or 8.</p>

<p>Here are a few examples of what I like to do. http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelbrouwer/sets/72157628794983973.</p>

<p>Those were taken with my old 7D and 17-55, mostly at focal lengths from 17-24 (28-35 equivalent), before I made my switch to "the dark side." </p>

<p>What would be your 28mm choice to get edge-to-edge sharpness and minimal or easily correctable distortion?</p>

<p>A) Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR<br>

B) Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED<br>

C) Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G<br>

D) Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS Manual Focus<br>

E) Other</p>

<p>I considered the 24mm PCE tilt-shift lens, but that is very expensive, and it also seems like many people are dissatisfied with its performance on the D800/E.</p>

<p>I thank you for any of your thoughts. I own B and D already, so anyone voting for either of those wins additional thanks from the family bookkeeper.</p>

<p> </p>

<h1> </h1>

<p>Oh, and as for all the concerns about murder and disease: We stayed in average-priced, not fancy accommodations, in nice but not ritzy neighborhoods. The food was fantastic and we never felt unsafe anywhere. No one gave my camera a second glance. I lost about 36 hours out of our two weeks to stomach trouble, but then that happened last time I went to Baltimore, too! A great trip; I'm eager to return. </p>

<p>I don't know if anyone's interested, but I thought I'd report back just in case! I took the D7000 plus the 20, 35, and 50. It was wonderful. Going out walking in the city, I'd keep the 35 on the camera, and the pairing was terrific. Light, compact, unobtrusive. I am not a brave street photographer, but this little setup inspired confidence, and I know I got many more shots than I would have if I would have been pointing the 24-70 bazooka at strangers. Doing more touristy stuff like visiting the amazing Monte Alban and various churches, I was surprised by how often I wanted to put the 20 to use, and I was really glad I brought it. I think it also performed very well -- no vignetting, for one thing, as opposed to when I have it on the D700. The 50 I found I used least, but I was glad to have it for some casual portrait shots of my traveling companions. </p>

<p>Oh, I also brought the Canon S95. I thought I'd use it for backup, and I also thought I might want it in case I was going to be going into a situation where I felt the D7000 was going to attract unwanted attention. In the event, as I said, the D7000 felt so unobtrusive that I never used the S95 at all. </p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for their input.</p>

<p>A handful of my favorites from the trip: http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelbrouwer/sets/72157630448071010/detail/</p>

<p>Naomi, as Dan says, the third and fourth photos here use flash, so they're a bit trickier. Photos 1, 2, and 5 are probably interesting to you because of the quality of the light. In each of them, there's either sunrise or sunset natural light, and the model has her back to that light. Go out with a friend in the first or last light of the day and play around -- have her face the light, turn her back to the light, stand sideways to the light, etc. Take a lot of frames, think about the different choices you're making, and see what pleases you most. You have a great camera, and I bet your prime lens is just fine. Experiment and have fun!</p>

<p>Choices can be paralyzing, Shun!</p>

<p>But I think your logic about the choice is sound. If you intend to use the camera in situations where you can practice controlled, deliberate technique, and you have the use of other cameras for more fast-paced scenarios, it probably makes sense to get the tiny extra edge of the 800E.</p>

<p>Anyone who is going to own just one FX body, and has decided it will be either 800 or 800E, is probably better off with the greater flexibility of the 800. </p>

<p>All that said, the dpreview real-world comparisons sure make the differences look minimal! I don't think a civilian would ever see the difference between the pictures made by the two bodies, onscreen or on paper. The E is like the cherry on top of a mountainous sundae -- and you can only see the cherry up to f11!</p>

<p>By the way, thanks again for your help with my 85 -- I am really loving it. </p>

<p>It's a grand irony, I think, that Nikon comes out with this incredible sensor, but so many (I include myself in this) are so obsessed with the e/non-e quandary, we can't be happy! Had there been just one version (w/AA or without), people would just be talking about what a miracle machine the thing is. </p>

<p>Thanks everyone, time to pack, so hasta luego!</p>

<p>Montezuma's revenge will come and go, but I'll struggle with NAS all my life . . . </p>

<p>Thanks, everyone! It's really interesting to hear how different people approach a situation like this. My plan is to take an Ultrapod II (I love this thing), the S95, the D7000, and two primes: the 50 for sure and probably the 20. (For the record, though, I think it's a little sad that no one spoke up for the 28.) I love that 24-70, but I don't like to walk around with it, especially in cities, both because of the weight and because of its conspicuousness. Have you ever had one of those things pointed at you? </p>

<p>I'll let you know at the end of the month how it all went! Assuming of course I'm not eviscerated by dysentery or beheaded by drug lords. Thanks again!</p>

<p>Do you have a flash meter, Matthew? If not, I strongly suggest a Sekonic 308s. It's going to make life a lot easier.</p>

<p>What cable did you get to connect the camera and wireless transmitter? </p>

<p>I suggest you test this all out before you load the camera with film. The shutter should trigger the flash with or without film in the camera, of course, and it's a lot less expensive to experiment without film than with!</p>

<p>And you are going to have to experiment, because your flash switch is unmarked. Usually these switches are marked with an M (or lightbulb) or X (or lightning bolt). M/lightbulb is for flashbulbs. Because flashbulbs take a fraction of a second to warm up before firing, when the switch is in this position, the flashbulb is fired about 1/50 of a second before the shutter opens, so that by the time it does open, the flashbulb's light is where it should be, on the subject. X/lightning bolt is for electronic flashes, and when the switch is in this position, the flash is fired at the same moment that the shutter is opened. This is the setting you want for your setup.</p>

<p>Here's how you figure out where to put that lever: Hook everything up, open the back of your camera (no film in it), and keep your eye on the taking lens shutter. When you fire the shutter, you should be be able to see the light from the flash through the aperture. (This will work better if you use a large aperture.) If the flash fires but you don't see its light through the shutter opening, that means the camera triggered the flash before the shutter opened. If that happens, move that switch to the other position, and it should work on your next attempt.</p>

<p>Off for four days in Mexico City and seven in Oaxaca. Can't wait to take pictures! I think I've made up my mind what to bring, but I'm curious: What would you bring, and why? Here are the contents of the gear closet to choose from:</p>

<p>D700<br /> D7000<br /> Canon S95</p>

<p>20mm 2.8D<br /> 28mm 2.8AIS<br /> 24-70mm 2.8G<br /> 35mm 1.8G DX<br /> 50mm 1.4G<br /> 85mm 1.8G</p>

<p>Much as I'd like to bring a film camera, I've talked myself out of that for sure, so I won't even list them . . .</p>

<p>I know these posts are kind of silly, since different people like to shoot different things. Judging by my kit you can probably tell I'm most interested in landscapes, street, and portraits; not a lot of birding options here! Nevertheless I'm still curious what kind of thought processes others of you go through when making these decisions. Note I'm not asking what I should bring, so much as I'm asking what you'd bring. Thanks!</p>

<p>Assuming that you have no lenses at all right now?</p>

<p>I'd suggest you buy one lens at a time, rather than a bunch at once, and that the first one you buy is a mid-range focal length. Either a zoom (16-35 or 17-55 or 24-105) or, perhaps wisest of all, a $100 50mm 1.8.</p>

<p>Use that one lens for a couple months, and then ask yourself: Do I often feel like I'm too far away from my subject? Do I often feel I'm crowding my subject? Am I struggling to get enough light into the lens? Am I satisfied with the background blur of my portraits? And so forth. Let your answers determine your next purchase. If you find after a couple months that you're actually perfectly happy, then perhaps the one lens is all you need! </p>

<p>One additional comment about the notion of avoiding AFS lenses in case you one day move to full frame. I disagree. The 10-22 and 17-55 are excellent lenses, and when I owned a 7D I loved them both. When I moved to a full frame camera, I sold the 7D and these EFS lenses. The lenses held their value even better than the camera.</p>

<p>The challenging part is finding the right sync cord, Michael. Here's the response I got from the always-helpful Ferdi Stutterheim when I asked the same question:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00aH9z</p>

<p>I haven't gotten around to trying it yet, so I can't report success or failure . . . </p>

<p>Sorry for the little fit of pique, everyone. I understand that there are technological limitations. I also understand, and sympathize with, the pleasures of being UN-connected sometimes. Believe me, I don't want or need to post pictures to Facebook from my camera. But wouldn't it be beautiful if when you came home from a day of (digital) shooting, your images were waiting for you on your computer? It sounds like science fiction, right? But the iPhone camera already does it. And "real" cameras will do it too, eventually. It's just a matter of time -- and also a matter of which companies will get there first. Thanks for your thoughts and your indulgence.</p>

<p>This little doodad the WU-1a already looks, brand new, like one of those random obsolete gadgets you find in the bottom of a storage bin and wonder, "Now what was that for, again?" Why not just build this into the 3200, and build an ad campaign around this being "the most connected Nikon DSLR ever"? Why make it more complicated for the soccer mom by making her plug this big sold-separately wart into the side of her camera? And no iPhone support out of the gate? It's ridiculous. Oh, and what a sexy name they chose for it, too. This is a consumer product, not an anti-aircraft missile. Call it the "New Nikon FunBug!" and you'll sell an awful lot more of them.</p>

<p>I have a D700 and a D7000 and I love them. I (almost) never wish for better focusing, better sensors, better metering, better ergonomics, better software, or really better anything, in terms of image-making performance. But I wish every day that my cameras could access my wireless network.</p>

<p>Neither Nikon nor Canon seem to be willing to move DSLRs into the 21st century in terms of connectivity. I'm not an engineer, so maybe someone can explain this to me. A $300 iTouch has 32GB of flash memory and built-in wireless. My $100 laser printer can be accessed through my wireless network. Why can't a D3200, much less a D800 or D4, have solid-state memory and built-in wireless?</p>

<p>We have such amazing imaging technology from the camera companies and such incredible connectivity technology from the hardware companies. Why can't these be brought together in the same box? Someone's going to do it eventually. I'd rather it be the fully networked D900 and not the iEVIL. </p>

<p>Today is the two-month anniversary of my order of the 85 1.8g from Amazon. Anyone have any idea where I might be in the queue to receive this lens? Headed on a trip in mid-May; I sure hope it's here by then. </p>

<p>Thanks, Ferdi. Much obliged.</p>

<p>I have a new set of Phottix Strato II Multi wireless flash triggers and I'm hoping to try it out with my Rolleiflex. There is a cord that came with the triggers that goes from PC (for the camera) to 3.5mm (for the Strato trigger), but the end for the camera is not a secure fit -- it has threads on it, for one thing, and the Rollei's jack for the cable looks to be one where you just push the connector in; it has no threads. Can anyone point me to the proper sync cord? I'm not sure where to start. Thanks!</p>

<p>OK, I'm getting the message, Bob, thanks. Say I get a flash -- maybe a Nikon, maybe a LumoPro -- and a stand and some kind of modifier. What do I need to trigger it with a Rolleiflex? </p>

<p>Thanks, everyone. I've spent a lot of time at Strobist and have considered flashes, but I am brand new to working in studio and I feel like I'd be more comfortable with continuous lighting for a while, so I can see what the light is doing. I'm attracted to CFL because they don't get hot.</p>

<p>There are 5600K CFL bulbs out there -- shouldn't they do a reasonable job of imitating daylight and syncing up with color daylight films? </p>

<p>I'm setting up a little home studio where I hope to take portraits of friends with my Rolleiflex. I'm considering buying a cheapo set of softboxes from Amazon to serve my lighting needs. They take CFL bulbs. </p>

<p>Up till now, I've been using Portra and Fuji 400H films in my Rolleiflex for outdoor shooting only. Are those films going to look like crap if I use them in CFL light? </p>

<p>If so, I guess I'm going to need either a different lighting solution (suggestions welcome) or different film(s) (suggestions welcome). </p>

<p>I have read that CFL works with with B&W films, but I prefer color for this little enterprise. </p>

<p>Thanks for your help!</p>

<p>That makes a world of sense to me. Making relationships straightforward and cooperative, rather than bureaucratic and antagonistic, seems to me the best first course of action in pretty much any situation. </p>

<p>Thanks again, John. That's very useful. You don't confront the person with a bunch of frightening legalese, which is good, and you also accomplish in a simple and straightforward way what's probably the most important task here: simply to let the person know that you take seriously your commitment to be upfront and frank with them. Elegant. Again, my thanks.</p>