paulie_smith1

<p><a href="http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=37542">http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=37542</a><br>

Makes sense that Nikon would roll out another Big Gun for the upcoming Olympics. Put the heel to Canons neck while they are still in the lead. No Auto Focus problems like Canon has with the 1DMkIV and previous 1DMkIII - two models that mean big business for Nikon as shooters with them get frustrated and move to Nikon.<br>

Should be an interesting 2011 when the new stuff hits the marketplace.</p>

<p>The D4 should be announced shortly before the next Winter Olymics so shooters will have it in hand to shoot the skiiing and competition.</p>

<p>With the D7000 being able to use AIS lenses, how is the viewfinder? Is it really bright and contrasty enough to fine focus these lenses by hand without problems? Am coming from Nikon F2 and F3 bodies and that is the viewfinder I am used to. Nice and bright and easy for me to focus. Many of my friends digital mirror boxes are not as nice.<br>

Does the D7000 solve this with a pentaprism that is bright enough for us older folks used to older cameras that still work well? Or would a D300 have a better finder? I know, another variable. Am looking at the Nikon digital bodies now that it looks as if all might work well with the older AIS lenses more easily - or have I not understood this too well?</p>

<p>When you finally run low you can find some Mido cut film holders and use them. They work very well for some and not so well for others. If you are one they work well for you have a lightweight double film holder system that cuts weight and bulk in a big way. Very nice system for those who are comfortable with using them. They are no longer being made but on the used market you should be able to find some.<br>

If you try them and don't like them you can always re-sell on these forums. As I posted, some really like them and are often on the lookout to buy more.</p>

<p>Go ut and buy Photographers Survival Manual: A Legal Guide for Artists in the Digital Age , by Greenburg and Reznicki.<br>

It will help answer some of your questions and set straight some of the myths already put up on this post. Well worth the price.</p>

<p><a href="

</p>

<p>Yep, a camera and a sleeping bag and you are really in trouble.<br>

Meanwhile, photography is not in the Homeland Security act.</p>

<p>Would like to have something digital to match the Contax G2. Decent rangefinder window for composition. Take the Contax lenses made for the G1 and G2. Nice and easy with good quality.<br>

The Leica M9 is prohibitively expensive and not in the cards.<br>

Sure wish someone would or could make digital G2 body for us.</p>

<p>Inexpensive medium format is Bronica SQ and Mamiya RB, both decent and to be had for low prices these days. Both have already been mentioned and both will work.<br>

A good 4x5 Calumet can be had for well under $200. A 150 Rodenstock Apo Sironar for a $300-300. Very sharp and one of the finest normal lenses around for 4x5. A half dozen film holders won't cost much.<br>

Yes, there are many other options as far as camera bodies. My preference is the Deardorff or the Linhof Technika. Both good and both work well. I have owned Calumets and they do the job, just not as nice for field work for what I photograph.<br>

Basic swing and tilt is all you will need for most images where you use any at all. The Calumet will do well there. I have looked around and you can outfit yourself with a 4x5 outfit, including light meter, two or three lenses and 50 sheets of film for well under $1000. It is not difficult to use in the field and coming back with a few very good images beats coming back with 200 average images every day for some of us.<br>

Regardless of where you end up, enjoy the journey. Some of us like the older cameras for the tactile experience on the way to the final image we will show the world. If it works for you, so much the better.</p>

<p>Looks as if it does not have an optical finder on it.<br>

Same problem as so many other promising cameras in that in dim situations the screen on the back in your face ruins night vision and spotlights your face in a crowd as you try to compose.<br>

Am looking at the LX5 which at least has a digital finder as an add on. Wish it had an optical finder, but no luck there. Really like the idea of the 24mm wide equivalent. That bit extra is going to be handy in the field.</p>

<p>Am looking at a pocketable carry around digital to keep with me while shooting LF work. The Panasonic LX5 has a 24mm wide angle (equivalent) and goes to 90mm, a nice complement to the 5x7 camera I use a lot.<br>

Anyone with one have anything to say about shutter lag when shooting? I have tried a few friends cameras and the lag is a killer. If I want to wait I have the 5x7. When the odd cat peeks around the corner I would like to push the shutter button and have the camera shoot the picture, not after the cat/snake/whatever leaves or the breeze settles down and the waving leaves are stopping.<br>

It looks like a nice package, just concerned about shutter lag.</p>

<p>Am looking at these two bodies. I use 1DMkIIn and would like a full frame body as well. The 5D is newer but the 1DsMkII is built better and will use the batteries I already have and should handle more like I am used to. The 1D is supposed to have better AF with moving subjects also, a real plus.<br>

Is the final image file of the 5DMkII going to be noticeably 'better' in use than the older pro body? Will there be a viewable difference in quality up to 20x24 or so? I can live with the newer body if the images are actually better - enough to be seen by a discerning eye.<br>

I am not able to go to a camera shop and see the difference without an 8 hour drive, one way. No 'local' camera shops anywhere within 5 hours and it does not handle pro gear.<br>

The deciding factor for me will be the final image. From what I have read they look very close. Is this correct?</p>

<p>Have a new computer and it does not have a firewire connection.<br>

What cord do I get to download directly from the camera to the computer? The Canon site is no help on this one.</p>

 

<p>For the LX5 and users, what is the shutter lag when shooting? Have tried a couple point and shoot cameras but the lag from pushing the shutter to the photo actually being taken was way too long for me.<br>

Is the LX5 a quick one?<br>

I see that Leica has their version and the price is at $800 compared to $400 for the LX5. You get lightroom but I already have a good photo editing program I prefer so that is not an enticement. Why would I buy the Leica rather than the Panasonic for the same camera for double the price?</p>

<p>Had similar problems and the folks at Adobe say "BUY CS5".<br>

I fought it awhile, reloading a few times on the new machine. Finally bit the bullet and bought CS5 and it works fine. Wish I had not had to do it but with the newer operating system you are stuck upgrading if you want it working without the slowdowns/shutdowns from time to time. Then one day it won't work at all and you lose what you have done.</p>

<p>What would be gained if I were to get Adobe Lightroom?<br>

I use Breezebrowser Pro for quick edits after a shoot and then to check sharpenss and exposure, opening images that need a tweak in CS5 directly from the program.<br>

I have Bridge with CS5, don't use it much but have to look more carefully at what it will do to see if it would benefit me to learn and use it more.<br>

Also have Canon Digital Photo Pro that I have used a bit for conversion to TIFF and JPEG files from RAW images.<br>

Will I benefit from Lightroom in any measurable way? Faster editing? Better final images somehow? Easier batch processing - say a small tweak that needs to be done to brighten 400 images a half stop due to shooting in gymnasium lighting?<br>

In short, would Lightroom be redundant considering what I already have on the computer?</p>

<p>You want a body that works well for sports. Take a good look at a used 1DMkII or MkIIn. The n model has a bigger screen on the back, image quality is identical. Used prices vary from 700 to 1100 range. The AF for sports is excellent. Many pro shooters are still using the MKII bodies for hockey arenas and fast moving sports for one good reason: they work. Auto focus is fast and accurate. Exposure is good. Image quality is good.<br>

They are a pro body, not a prosumer body. Built like a brick, bombproof and they just keep working well. Then you will have a bit more to spend for some fast glass to use for those poorly lit venues you are going to face.</p>

<p>Be aware that the Nikon metering is probably better than Canon and Nikon flash system, accuracy and repeatability is way better with Nikon. The flash system difference has been a Canon problem for years.</p>

<p>View Camera magazine is absolutely wonderful this issue. About 70 pages of images from Paul Caponigro. Not 'greatest hits', but images we have not seen before. The printing is excellent and his is an issue worth keeping as it showcases one of the great talents of our time.<br>

I hope he does another featuring Ray McSavaney in the future.</p>

<p>"...and neither shoud you"?<br>

Why shouldn't I?<br>

Seeing a 12x20 inche hand poured carbon print, an 8x10 hand coated pt/pd or a 20x24 polaroid original... I enjoy knowing what tools were used. All understanding the images are top quality work it is iteresting to see what those who make excellent work use. Not the throw away photography we see too often, the copycat junk from those who travel and take the same picture/different park.<br>

Knowing the basics of what was used helps at times when learning how some images were created. It can help in understanding why some images look the way they do. But then, I am looking more at traditional and now alternative processes than the current crop of spray'n pray style photographers. There will always be those who love tne gear and others who don't care. What does it matter if the final photos are lousy? It still matters to those who spend all that money. Some don't really care about the image, they like the equipment. If that works for them, fine. They will not be the next Paul Caponigro.</p>

<p>In our area we have a very succesful studio photographer who is still shooting with the Canon 1D. Not the Mark II, Not the 1DS series, the older original bodies. Still work well and her work looks very good.<br>

She shoots and uses the gear, makes and sells prints and they are well done.<br>

It is still the photographer.</p>

<p>Double your price and look at the new Panasonic LX5. A few hundred dollars more and a red dot and it is called a Leica.<br>

24-90 zoom lens with an f/2.0 aperture at the wide end and f/3.3 at maximum zoom.<br>

No, not a superzoom lens but fast enough to actually be useful in may low light situations. Small enough for pockets and a camera that will be worth carrying around.</p>

<p>I have a friend who uses an old Bolex small and low contraption called a 'praying mantis'. It is a really lightweight aluminum tripod designed specifically for macro photography low to the ground. Very light and can be set up for a lot of shots easily. I have seen a few on classified ads for under $50 from time to time. They were made for Bolex movie cameras but work real well for still macro and close up photography.</p>