richard_laepple
-
Posts
569 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by richard_laepple
-
-
I also got the 55-200. I like the light weight, the non-rotating front and the silent af. The zoom ring also feels very good. It's worth the money. I think there is no better choice in this zoom range in the lower price class.
-
Rolleicord (lighter than a 'flex) or Fuji GS645 (folder).
-
For my clients I use digital and for my private fun b&w film. I already spend a lot of time with my computer to earn my money. In my free time I try to live without it. And I just don't want to miss the simplicity of film gear (FM, FM3A, Rolleiflex...).
-
I totally agree with Stuart. Both cameras you have suggested are great to learn.
-
I sometimes work with a Fuji GS645 which is a noticeable noisier than my Rolleiflex but not as noisy as a SLR. It also has a faster lens (f=3.4/75mm) than most MF rangefinders. I never used or owned a Makina 67 which may be perfect for the kind of shooting you mean (Nikkor f=2.8/80mm). I agree with Kai that the 35mm rangefinders of the 1970ies ar very descreet cameras (Canonet, Minolta Himatic, Konica S3...) They all have very fast lenses (f=1.7/40mm or so). The Rolleiflex SL35 is the quietest 35mm SLR I can remember, then come the Olympus OM-1/OM-2. The Nikons come behind them except the N70/F70 which is the quietest Nikon SLR as far as I know.
-
This is typical for this camera. I had one with the same problem. A Fuji repair shop fixed it for about 100$, meter check included.
-
The 50/1.8 works very well for portraits, personally I would start with this lens, it's a bargain. Best performance for the money. The 85/1.8 is perfect for head shots and longer distances. If you really need zoom flexibility and if budget is limited the 55-200 is not bad. I use this lens for about half a year now. Built quality is rather cheap but it's a very compact lens you can always carry around without getting a heavy shoulder. I can confirm that performance is surprisingly good. It focuses not very fast but very silent. You can hear almost nothing. In some situations an advantage. Another advantage may be the small filter size (52mm, as on the 50/1.8) if you want to use soft filters. The Zeiss Softars (I & II) are very good, not cheap, but cheaper in 52mm size.
-
If Vivek is right using expensive VR lenses (e.g. 18-200) with a D70 must be disappointing. Any experiences from D70 users so far?
-
Yes, R I = bay I, R II = bay II, R III = bay III. BTW the "R" comes from "Rollei bayonet".
-
Stan, the least expensive way is probably having 2 zooms, your 28-105 for film and a new DX-sized one for digital. As suggested above I'd also recommend the D70 kit lens (18-70).
-
Anthony, only you can decide if the more features of the the D70s are important for you. Image quality and performance are very equal. But what I'd recommend is getting the 18-70 lens. With your 28-80 you don't have a real wide angle on a D50/D70s body. And this lens offers AF-S that means very fast focusing. If budget is limited I think I'd prefer the D50 w/18-70 lens over a D70s body alone.
-
John, keep in mind the D50 is an amateur body and the older 80-200/2.8 a heavy pro lens with older zoom design. The AF speed with such a lens is probably rather slow on a D50. I wouldn't purchase without testing. The 85/1.8 is perfect. Another option might be the 180/2.8.
-
Dito a TLR. For 100-200$$ you can probably find nothing else. But keep in mind that older TLRs, like other cameras, often need service which costs another 100-200$$. Besides Autocords or Yashicas consider an earlier Rolleiflex with Tessar/Xenar lens or a Rolleicord.
-
I would not sell it. I think I'd sell the F70 instead. But my style of shooting is probably different. 100-150 Euros sounds not much, although realistic, but the camera will keep this value, the F70 e.g. not.
-
Gene, funny, did you really switch your camera "on" when shooting the first 10 days? ;-)
-
Kar, I also did not read this anywhere but what else can these fine lines be? All the five AF fields have a line, not only the center field.
<p>I mostly carry my D70 in a Lowepro Nova 4 with 2-3 lenses and a SB-600 and some accessories. There are plenty of shoulder bags, back packs, waist bags or body bags on the market. Just a matter of taste.
-
This line is normal. It's the power supply for AF field, of course not for focusing but for the illumination.
-
As Graham says, the 3 finger method works, but it's important to keep the nail of the index finger short.
-
For the F80 the 4-5.6/70-300 G has probably the best price/quality ratio. There is a more expensive non-G version of this lens with ED glass and aperture ring. Other options are the older 4-5.6/70-210 or 4/70-210 which can often be found used. The 4/70-210 has many friends because of the constant f=4 aperture, but it focuses a bit slow. Don't make too many thoughts about lens quality. Today even the cheapest lenses can produce superb images.
-
A 2,8/80-200 or 2.8/70-200 is not a lightweight (~1.5kg). The 2.8/180 weighs only 750g. IMO a heavy pro zoom and a plastic amateur body is not the perfect combo, so I'd go for the 180 or a slower amateur zoom.
-
Good to know that the more expensive camera makes the better pics.
-
On what camera do you use it?
-
I agree with Ferdi. The Mamiya TLRs are good choices for studio work or landscapes when you have time. I wouldn't call them action cameras. The bellows allow you shooting close ups or head shots, ok, but it's not very "easy to manage". You need an accessory called paramender for an exact parallax correction. I have found that shooting close ups with a Rolleiflex/Rolleicord + Rolleinar attachement lens is much easier. For what you want to do a SLR may be better.
-
Joanne, I think you are talking about 50mm focal length. All the 50mm Nikkors you can get are very good. Normally you can life with a 50/2.0 which costs a third of the 50/1.4 used. You can't go wrong with any of the 50mm lenses.
The New Nikkor 18-200: Is it worth getting???
in Nikon
Posted