mdma

<p>I bought a mint boxed one on eBay a while ago, on a whim. The styling hasn't yet grown on me, though that aside its quite a capable camera. My AE-1 Program has started playing up but I'm still able to use all my lovely FD lenses with the T-70.<br>

However probably the most interesting thing about the camera are the Japanese commercials - made by Katsuhiro Otomo who later went onto direct the landmark animated film <em>Akira</em>. <br>

</p>

<p>Ive used a D3100 all the way up to 6400. At 3200 and above though, you have to get the exposure spot on otherwise the quality dips well below acceptable; think cell phones circa 2005.<br /> If the exposure is correct, I can live with the noise and slight softness at ISO 6400 for web use and prints up to 8x10.<br>

Of course this is the bargain option - the D5100/7000 would be considerably better. </p>

<p>I think David's question has been answered well, but I'd like to add an interesting tidbit - Although Shun hasnt used his D2X in 4+ years, NASA currently <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/07/how-does-nasa-get-nikon-d2xs-ready-to-go-to-space">are</a> and looks like they're only slowly <a href="http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/d-slr/shuttle-photography-with-the-pros/">replacing them now</a> (see last comment from blog author: thermal blankets for the D3 were <em>under construction</em> at the time - June 2011. And a little more info <a href="http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/tag/d2x/">here</a> about Nikons in space).<br>

Are they obsolete, as a photographic tool? My personal view is no. At <strong>low ISO</strong> they would likely produce better photos than my iPhone 4 or midrange Sony compact camera, and I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference compared to photos from my D3100.<br>

Would I buy one? Not really, because they represent poor value for money and a similarly priced D90/D5100 is more practical for most people. If I were to buy one: <strong>D2Xs</strong>. </p>

<p>Impressive - I particularly like <strong>3</strong> and <strong>12</strong> . By coincidence Ive been recently toying with the idea of moving to the Pacific NW, Seattle being an obvious choice. </p>

<p>I know my pictures suck. But no-one else's sucks like mine, thats what makes them so special!<br>

On a slightly more serious note, I get what he's trying to say and agree with it, to some extent. You could argue that with greater access to professional tools (Photoshop, 'L' lenses etc.) over the past 10 years or so the standard of output from enthusiasts/amateurs has, genuinely, increased. <br>

Also alot of 'great' photographers work is so recognised because they were simply <strong>first</strong>; everybody else is just guilty of re-appropriation - even if their work is of equal 'quality'. Photography having been around for a while now, its getting harder to truly stand out from the crowd as chances are your work will be emulating somebody, somewhere (Ansel Adams, Helmut Newton, that guy you have on Flickr). Not that raw talent doesn't shine through of course.</p>

<p>I think many of us would have bought that camera on the spot too, its an absolute steal at that price! <br>

Re: servicing, I can vouch for Newton Ellis of Liverpool. Ive only used them for my Olympus OM cameras but they are pretty savvy with Nikons too i think; I was showed a beautiful, completely unused (sticker still on pressure plate) plain prism Nikon F like yours that had been sent in with a jammed shutter. Their quotes are on the expensive side though.</p>

<p>The battery check only really works if you know what 6 beeps a second sounds like. Apparently I dont, although it didn't stop my AE-1P (that still had undeveloped film in from 1986) from working perfectly. I only realised when I bought a brand new 4LR44 to replace the one supplied, upon when it started beeping like I had given it amphetamines instead!<br>

Also its not uncommon for <em>extremely </em>mint cameras to have issues - my local specialist camera store showed me a pristine, plain-prism Nikon F - complete with factory stickers on the film pressure plate - suffering from a jammed shutter. Anyway I hope you get a working AE-1P somehow, it really is a fantastic model, possibly the best consumer orientated 35mm SLR ever. </p>

 

<p>You'll have to think about the balance of speed vs range vs wideness vs sharpness, and in what order those things are important to you.<br>

I think theres a DPReview article on the 12-24mm that says its sharper than any other wide angle lens in the price bracket, but losing 2mm of wideness is noticeable when compared to its 10/11mm contemporaries - such as the Sigma 10-20mm which seems to get some respect. <br>

I went to a Cathedral in Germany recently, no flashes allowed so I bumped up the ISO to 6400 and got acceptable results with my D3100... I think you should too with your D90. My shots were around f/4 on Program, with the Nikon f/1.8 35mm DX.<br>

So a maximum aperture of f4 wouldn't hurt you too much, assuming you're willing to put up with a fair amount of grain/noise and make no excessively large prints. If the exposure's spot on, it'll probably hold up to 8"x10". </p>

 

 

<p>You dont tell us if your body is Full Frame or Crop, or whether it can fully use Manual focus AI lenses (an option perhaps?) but this was my shortlist when it came to choosing a wide angle for my little D3100: <br /> Tokina 12-24 F4 PRO DX II (is there any more intitials?) was said to be the sharpest in its class by dpreview.com, but the trade off was slightly narrower field of view (12mm vs 10mm of its rivals).<br /> Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 ATX PRO etc. I predominantly shoot in low light, so the extra speed would be handy though this does come at increased monetary cost.<br /> I think the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 is regarded to be fair for the price, but is somewhat lacking in build quality which turned me off it (I really knock about my equipment).</p>

<p>EDIT: Ah just seen the responses. Well I think my words are still valid if you want to go wider still :) </p>

<p>Yes. All Sony DSLR's.</p>

 

<p>God I love that website.</p>

<p>OM-2n. I've pretty much stopped using my EOS 1n entirely. </p>

<p>Its possible the West End Times have the misconception that you're not any kind of photographer, rather just a member of the public who happened to be at the right place at the right time. If your shots are used at all, they will likely credit you, but not necessarily pay you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Very short and, to me, unprofessional conversations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, but consider it might have been a very busy week for them. </p>

<p>Ive found someone selling a cut-away transparent model of the star of your last article - the Ricoh Mirai (2nd to last):<br>

http://www.glowbox.demon.co.uk/LIST7.HTM<br>

Its slightly tempting, but I think Ill stick to my SLRs :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well what is yall's opinion? Should I save some cash and go with the standard model and buy photo software?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Without software, hardware is just abstract statistics and fancy engineering. Option 1. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just never liked cycling through the various points in a circle by rotating that dial. I still don't get that system, and i'm constantly thinking i just didn't have the camera set up correctly. That can't be how it's supposed to work, right? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://www3.canon.de/images/pro/fot/slr/geh/file/EOS_3_eng_toc.pdf <br>

Page 38 has the focus point controls, in a nutshell the options are automatic/eye control/dial control.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For my type of pictures the 1N is working well. I keep the A2E around because it's so quiet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Im glad Im not the only one stuck in the 90's!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I bought the EOS 1n a month ago. My other modern film cameras were an EOS 1000f, EOS 5, EOS 300, a F801s and an F5. I'd say its better than all of them, overall.<br>

<br /> Between the rear control dial and the complete absence of any superflous, consumer orientated twilight/sport/beach modes etc. it is very straightforward to use, reminiscent of my OM-2n. It feels well built (it is of course) but without the power booster or battery pack, remains light for its size as it uses a single 2CR5 battery. It gets far more out of that battery, roughly double the amount of rolls an EOS 5 does. If you really need to use AA batteries, you can get the battery pack (4xAA). If you really need a higher FPS, you can get the power booster (8xAA). It isnt just forced on you like in the F5.<br>

AF is blisteringly fast, just as fast with USM lenses as my F5 was with AFS lenses. Having said that, the EOS 300 was no slouch, so I dont think the EOS 30/Elan 7 would be much slower, but there probably will be a noticeable difference. I believe an EOS 3 is faster still, and has more AF points (45?) vs just 5 on the EOS 1n. However the shutter noise is also louder on the 3. The 3 also isn't quite as weather sealed (please correct me if Im wrong).<br>

<br /> The 1v is similar to the 3; has faster AF, more AF sensors, but with the best environmental sealing Canon could produce at the time.<br>

<br /> Viewfinders are large all round, but of course Canon is (in)famous for not having as good eye relief as Nikon (especially as an eye glasses wearer).<br>

<br /> Arguably the biggest downfall of the 1n is that it wont work fully with the current EX series flashes, only the previous EZ models. And of course the EZ sieres isn't forwards compatible with digital bodies. This is a positive for me - I have no EOS digital bodies, and all the top EZ flashes are much cheaper.<br /> The 3 and 1v were designed for EX Speedlites.<br>

<br /> Hopefully this helps you out, as to why a 1v is 2-3x the cost of the other two. IIRC, the 3 and 1n are roughly the same price now. This may seem odd, seeing as the former is newer and more advanced, but I think this is because of the still significant commonality between the 1n and 1v.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now would be a great time for my question i have asked in a millions different ways to be answered - if i am applying curves or levels to all my scans then why use different film stock?...How could someone distinguish one film from another if they are all adjusted to look 'right' digitally?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Different levels of grain snaps to mind. But I can generally tell the difference, even after curves, between unfiltered tri-x, neopan 400, and HP5 when all have been developed in XTOL. Perhaps its because i dont go overboard/far enough with the "S" shape, but I find HP5 contrasty, Neopan "muddy"/more shadowy; it also captures skin tones differently (much better IMHO) to the others. Tri-x is nothing but mid-tones to me, which I dislike so I dont use, even though I could get the look I wanted eventually (and it is by far the sharpest of the three). So the others have the look I want more "built in" than the Tri-X, which is partly why I use them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do not want to just increase contrast etc through photoshop because that takes away the point of shooting nicer, more expensive films as i could do that with anything</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well if thats how you feel then thats grand, but personally Im after a satisfactory final image, so the method is irrelevant to me. When I use film its because i find it fun and I like the idea of non-deletable negatives, among other reasons. So I adjust always adjust the curves in adobe lightroom. I even add a little vignetting sometimes (gasp!). See my recent flickr uploads for what I mean: <br>

If you want to do it without such post processing, then I would suggest changing different films, use different filters (eg. Yellow/Orange/Red/Light blue) and then change development times/developer. Hopefully this way you can "fine tune" your BW photos to your liking. <br>

Oh and my scanner - a lowly epson v300 - scans flat too. I can only assume its to protect the detail from high contrast/saturation, should the user want such detail. </p>

<p>Ive used a D3100 since last October and have experienced zero problems. It even survived several days of heavy German snow and sub-zero temperatures.</p>

<p>Depends what lens you're using for the 50D/D3100 too. <br>

I also have a D3100 Chris, and I like it alot. I use it mainly with a 35mm f1.8 DX, which allows low light photography without flash (esp. at ISO 3200), good bokeh, and a field of view thats roughly equal to 50mm in film cameras. I also find the kit lens useful (18-55), as it goes wider, and has VR. This allows me to use the slow sync flash setting but not get blurry photos at slow shutter speeds. <br>

I have been meaning to get a used SB600 flash, but I keep spending the money on film equipment. I just cant resist the allure of black and white film :) But for colour, my little D3100 is the go-to guy.<br>

I also use the video function very frequently too. I dont want to drag up the whole "DSLRs are/are not video cameras" argument, but I like using mine because with the f1.8 lens I can get good bokeh again, lending a more professional feel if you get me. I dont use the autofocus during recording as it takes too long, and I always mute the audio and put music over it. But you need steady hands at all times, or the video will become surprising shakey! </p>

<p>RAM is pretty darn important when it comes to using LR, CS5, iMovie etc. I have an app called iStat Menus 3, which displays my CPU an RAM usage (among other things) at the top of my desktop, next to the clock. With my 4GB installed, I can see LR3 uses 60-70%, wheres my 4 processers do little except idle most of the time (bar exporting of course). <br>

+1 for buying the most advanced model. I got the 27" $2000 model last september, and now the $1700 version is faster. But I figured paying more for the quad core = 16GB RAM max = longer usefulness. Also I was drawn in by the sheer amount of real estate in 27"....That must be hectares in pixel terms, no?<br>

However...All the processers across the range are now i5 Quad Core. Even the slowest version will be more than adequate. The RAM is the same across the range. The larger screen size is nice for editing and watching videos, but overkill for everything else. The increased resolution also makes standard fonts much smaller, so all those websites <strong><em>best viewed at 1024x800</em></strong> will become the bane of your life!<br>

My gut instinct is to tell you to the the base 21.5" model but upgrade the RAM to 8GB (at least). You can do this while ordering, but if I remember correctly Apple charges a kings ransom for the privilege, so considering installing it afterwards yourself. It's pretty simple to do.</p>

<p>This has popped up numerous times since January, but actually Im glad it does. Hopefully, another handful of people will be inspired each time.</p>

<p>Jon, I actually have a 27", 1TB iMac. Its quad core, so I can install up to 16GB of ram. When 16GB is no longer enough, then Ill upgrade. Considering how much this cost, I hope its the other side of 2015!<br>

Oh, and I also have a 2007 1.5Ghz Core 2 Duo Toshiba Laptop, with half the ram. Via Google Chrome, It surfs the internet just as quickly as the iMac. Sadly the HD-DVD drive is less useful these days...</p>

<p>I'd like to throw the FA in here. Like all good Dinosaur-themed parks, its completely automated, and no expense has been spared. What could possibly go wrong?</p>