steve_ql

<p>"2) (much more important point to me). Last week a very good friend of mine....."You better not be photographing me!". It took me completely off guard, but then she explained to me that days earlier someone in her office had done just that, photographed her with a phone without her knowledge, and then showed her the pictures!"</p>

<p>Actually, that has nothing to do with street photography. It's a totally unrelated issue and doesn't even take place in a public area.<br>

That's really a work place harassment issue. Many companies require all employees go through harassment prevention training upon employment and every two years after. She should report that issue to HR if she first asked the colleague to not do it again, but he/she persists. And that's about all there is to it. It has nothing to do with street photography. </p>

<p>The S90 is the better choice, unless you're planning to take wildlife and action photos. <br>

It is small and convenient and lacks nothing in terms of image quality or lens coverage. <br>

In fact, if you're normal photography isn't superwide or long tele wildlife and action, I'd just<br>

sell the DSLR. With the S90, you probably take <br>

many more photos you'd normally not have taken with the DSLR simply because the camera<br>

is with you more often. </p>

<p>For photos of subjects in context, 60mm distagon is most used. Since that's the type of photography I mostly prefer, the 60 is my most used lens and is giving me the most satisfying images. </p>

<p>Which lens is Better than 85mm f/1.4?<br>

85 mm f/2.8 PC Micro-Nikkor or the newer 85 mm f/2.8 PC-E Micro-Nikkor N.<br>

<br /> For 2 stops less, you gain tilt/shift and macro capabilities. Tilt/shift will give you <br>

room for DOF creativity (although not quite like f/1.4) while macro gives you <br>

close focus to 1:2. The optics are equal to the 85 f/1.4, while <br>

the later "N" version has Nano-coating for even better contrast. Even though it <br>

is not AF, it's comparable to the 85 f/1.4 since I would use that lens manually at <br>

f/1.4 anyway (with the DOF being so narrow, AF is too hit and miss). <br /> </p>

<p>I was always 35mm, but couldn't afford a Hasselblad. With digital so popular, marvelous (Hasselblad) equipment can be had for dirt cheap.<br>

16x20 prints from a cropped square look fantastic from 400VC film. And such beautiful colors (I could never really match those Kodak color palettes with digital & photoshop)! I was really wishing for the Kodak Ultracolor in 120 (a favorite in 35mm), so I was ecstatic when Kodak announced its release in 120 this spring.</p>

<p>Among Nikkor wide angles, I think the 28 f/2.8 ais is even more legendary (and there isn't a soft aperture either). </p>

<p><strong>f/1.4</strong> at close to mid distances<br>

is simply an optional look, and neither boosting ISO nor VR can ever substitute for that look. There are no<br>

point and shoots that can give you <strong>f/1.4</strong> pictures, and there are no zoom lenses that can give<br>

photographs this unique appearance either. You pay the price for <strong>f/1.4</strong> only because there is no other way<br>

you can get the look of<strong> f/1.4</strong> except by using that aperture. Thus Nikon and everyone else keeps making the 50 f/1.4 lens.</p>

Ultracolor negative is also my favorite, but that's only for 35mm. The other most flexible is 400VC (the new one) available in 120.

 

It really comes down to landscapes/projection or people and prints. My most memorable photos always end up being of people,

and I prefer prints.

And since you're hitting a wedding, only negative film will do. You mentioned Provia, and I find even with the latest emulsion Provia F,

there is no shadow detail when you slightly underexpose (to save highlights from blowing out). Keep it simple and just use 400VC.

"Yes, I agree with you, it's probably overkill for film cameras and a good example is the Nikkor 85mm/1.4AF. It's perfect for film camera. On a high-res digital sensor, chromatic aberration (CA) starts to set in on edges between higher contrast areas." -Arthur Yeo

 

You missed the point of the fast 85 Nikkor. That lens was

designed specifically for portraits. A disadvantage of over-correcting for chromatic aberration in photographic lenses is the production of unpleasant bokeh.

You mentioned sharpness as your main concern.

 

You should consider the 55mm f/2.8 AIS.

Sharpness at f/1.8 - f/2 are not great

on the other lenses, and from f/2.8 - f/11, the

55 macro is better than the others as well.

 

There is an issue with oil on the aperture

blades, but it may not be a problem with

the later samples.

Every camera works differently. I would prefer to experiment with

shots to understand a camera meter before a trip.

 

On the three F100 samples I've worked with, the Matrix meter

tended to underexpose in order to preserve highlight detail

on slide film (i.e. high contrast range shots including sky

resulted in

properly exposed sky and loss of shadow detail).

With the limited contrast range you can capture on

a transparency, if you meter for the midtones, you'll still

get slides showing blown highlights since they fall outside

the range that can be captured on slide film.

One thing you can do is select your shots

to include scenes of limited contrast range which can all fall

within what's capturable on slide film.

"Since from the same company, those filter should design better to use on its own lens." - William Wu

 

Not really. A Canon filter will work just as well on a Nikon lens.

 

As to using one, everyone has their own preferences. I bought

a skylight filter for an 85mm f/1.4, but later preferred the

filterless results from that lens. The included hood already

provided enough protection as well.

Get another "little" FA.

 

28 on one, 85 on the other.

 

All done!

"If some one says the Zeiss CFs are worth playing with for bokeh and shows me some photos, then I will continue; otherwise I can give the lenses back." - Andy Aungthwin

 

You should try the medium format forum then. And then

get the proper medium format camera to fit the lenses to.

You'll find the lenses are superb for their intended purposes.

You might consider the 35mm f/2 AF-D.

How could I get something so basic confused?

 

Thanks for correcting me Mark and Hashim.

DX is not just APS or is it?

 

Let's say I'm confined to a spot to shoot my subject

8 feet away with a mountain in the background using a

30mm lens (35mm film camera). I'm happy with this shot.

 

To get the same angle of view with the DX camera,

I'd use a 20mm lens. But then perspective would look

totally different and the mountain would be distant and smaller,

and not the shot that I was after.

 

The same goes with the coyote howling at the giant moon shot.

With the coyote at the same size, the moon would appear

shrunken with a DX digital camera.

 

So some people would rather wait for full frame.

David,

 

The F6 was in the design stage before the Dx

cameras. It was actually the F6 which influenced

the look and feel of the Dx cameras which ultimately

came out first because of changes in market demand

for digital. Ultimately, shared parts and cost

allowed the F6 to see the light of day.

Still, the care they took to create the F6 is

beyond what any other manufacturer does these days.

I think it's an advancement in a film camera

in feel and operation, and not a retro design like

the FM series or M series rangefinders. The effort

in pushing *forward* the design in a film camera

(i.e. shutter release feel, shutter sound, etc.) in

a market completely shifted to digital is why I call

it a tribute to film cameras.

I don't have an F6, but would like one just

because I have lots of respect for

the attention to small details that were considered by

the designers of this camera. I would think

this is a kind of passion from the design point

of view.

 

Take a look here:

http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/scene/09/index.htm

 

More cameras are designed with a profit point of view.

Nikon knew that this wasn't a necessary camera.

This one was made as a last tribute to film with

full Nikon pride.

The tool will be made if the market is there.

 

Personally, I prefer the simplicity of

the FM2n and F2 that my wife and I use.

Aperture ring, shutter speed dial, and focus. It's easy

and menu free. Of course this is all preference, and

I guess if there's enough people who like this type

of style, a digital version will be made

to suit users like us.

 

There's an Epson R-D1(s)rangefinder and Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 SLR

that work this way. With Nikon still holding onto

the FM10 and introducing compatible Zeiss glass,

it's just a matter of cost and time that Nikon

will have something similar to Epson and Panasonic.

"Should I go the Kodak or the Fuji way? Should I use 160 or 400 speed?"

 

Kodak or Fuji is always a question for me too. I prefer

the Kodak colors but then I like the finer grain of Fuji.

I found Kodak Ultra Color to be the best compromise.

 

As for film speed, there will be times when you will use

f/2 with the 160 speed. With 400, you could use f/3.5.

I know the image improvement is much greater at f/3.5 instead of

f/2 as compared to the use of 160 speed over 400 speed film.

That is why I prefer 400.

Go get a brick roughly the same weight and tie a rope

around it. Hang it around your neck and walk around

the banquet hall for a while. See if you like it.

If it's the dream you always thought it was, go get it.

The 55 f/2.8 Micro is the sharpest of all

50 lenses.

I'd use a PC lens too. It's more flexible (and more fun).

Hi Bill,

 

You can give the Long's at Branham (near Almaden Expressway)

a try. I always get my enlargements at full frame 8x12.

They can also scan medium format and produce 8x8 prints.