tcb.photo

Rob, but you still haven't answered my question. If anybody could take the same quality of work with a Nikkormat, why would they bother to spend the extra money on an F5? Why aren't you using a Nikkormat? - Shun

 

Shun, That isn't what this thread was about is it? What I'm saying, again, is that the things I once had to use my "mental" ability to determine is now done automatically. Hence, if my work is better than when I used a Nikkormat; is it me or the technology? Or by not using my own mental ability, am I doing my self a mis service. As someone said, "by not using the muscle,...".

 

I too use spot metereing and average, more than I use Matrix. But that's a far cry from the mental calculations I did with center weighted in complex lighting. Or the Trial "and error" method of learning flash photography with the non TTL flash.

 

By not using my mind as much to achieve the reults, am I really a better photographer? That my friend is the question. We've had a few private conversations, and you know I have a "soft spot" for the "manual way". But this isn't a thread about how manual cameras make us better photogpahers. It only asked if the technology actually helps you, or hinders your learning curve.

 

But to change the thread, I will address your specific question. The answer is really easy, to make things simpler. People buy F5s and F100s and D100s to make photography easier. Anyone can take a good photo with a D100 and a decent lens, at least as long as he can turn it on. The Fully automated cameras allows us to stop using our brains and allow the computer to do the work for us. OR, for those who can't do it, to allow them to get the results, with out truly understanding what it is they are doing.

 

But it would be foolish, and irrogant, to assume, that just because someone uses a Nikkormat, or "F" or M2, that they can't produce the same quality of photos that you or I can with a F100 (or F5) with my ED, Asph. lens.

 

Long before Spot metering and matrix metering, af and all the rest people were producing art that is today still the standard. Few of us can capture a landscape like Ansel Adams, and he didn't matrix metering either. My point is, can I ever achieve that level with out all my automated gizmos. Not a debate, just a honest journey of self discovery.

Jeff

 

That was perfect. Now the kid can see what you meant. Very impressive and helpful

Easy Shun,

 

Read my post. I said I use a F100 and a D100. My question, to myself and any other who wished to participate is a simple one. IF, I were to pick up a "Nikkormat", or any similar camera, would I still be able to take the same quality of photos as I would with the F100 or the D100? Or has the automation reduced me to merely a "point and shoot" photographer? To quote myself: "Has my 'skill' advanced, or just my technology?"

 

This isn't a post about Manual focus vs Auto focus. It isn't a post about F100 vs the Nikkormat. This isn't a post about Digital vs. film. It isn't about "G" vs "D" or any of that.

 

Shun, It's a simple post that asks a simple question for self reflection. You could answer it with one word.

 

 

Why the post has gone beyond this is not my doing. I once heard the art comes for us, the question is -does it still

Hey Kevin

 

I liked the photo. I always assume the real thing is better than these highly compressed jpegs. I think any example is good when answering a question for someone like Ian -ie. a newbie.

 

I think those who didn't like you example should have given one that demonstrates their perspective, rather than critiquing your photo. That might have showed Ian, and for that matter me, another perspecitve.

 

But then it's always easier to destroy than create

I thought Ian asked if we thought a flash was essential? Not a photo critique. Persoannlly I like the bride photo because it's unstaged. Maybe fill flash would have made it better, but we'll never know

 

I still think $300 is alot for a flash for someone starting out in photography. It maybe a good price for that Flash Unit, but a less expensive flash will let Ian experiment

 

BTW, who are you apologizing to Travis?

Again fully automated D100<div></div>

This is shot, with a fully automated D100.<div></div>

Hi Jack

 

In the past I owned both the HC and the AI. Great lens, perhaps one of the finest 50mm ever built. I always like the HC for looks, which doesn't matter.

 

As for the sweet spot, it's good at all apertures

I met some fellow Nikon, and a Canon, users for lunch today and a

interesting topic of conversation developed. Nothing bad, but it did

make me think

 

A simple question was asked. With out the Aperture and shutter

priority, Program Mode, matrix metering, Spot metering, Auto focus,

matrix metered flash, computer controlled operation, VR, "D" and the

other little goodies that the "Auto Everything Cameras" do, could

you take the same quality of photos?

 

In essence, do you think you be able to produce the same quality of

work with a Nikkormat, as you can with a F100(F5, N80 etc.)?

 

My first response was: Of course. But then I wondered If I really

could. Or did I get too "use" to letting the camer do most of the

work for me. I do use spot metering more than Matrix, but I can't

remember when I used Center weighted on my F100 (If I ever did).

 

Does that mean my F100 basically a point and shoot, with

interchagable lens? Does it make photopgraphy too easy? Does it

actually make you a "worse" photographer, because we don't actually

do the "work"? Has my "skill" advanced, or just my technology?

 

Anyway I thought it was an interesting conversation and I'd share it

with the group and see what you thought

 

Rob

Darin,

 

Kodak even made a "digital" version of one of the Pronea. But the film never turned out to be that popular

Ian,

 

I think that's high for a flash. In fact I'd almost say a rip off. Although I'm not familiar with the 167, I'd say the flash the dealer is recommending may be for a "New Model", with some sort of Matrix flash metering. It would probably be a much more that than your camera can use.

 

I'd call B&H as Shawn suggested and see what they recommend for the camera you have.

 

Also, If you look at this web site you will also see the brochure from the 167mt, and it lists some flashes you might find on eBay. It shows a "TLA 20 and TLA30". Now way could they be over $ 300.00. Probably under $150.00. I'm not familiar with them. but "pace yourself".

 

http://www.contaxinfo.com/broshures/167MT/FrameSet.htm

 

Best of luck

 

Rob

the bystander

x<div></div>

Hi Charlie

 

I'm a Nikon guy also. I also have a F3hp, and I've used Leicas since I was a kid. The M7 is more like the F3hp with Aperture prioity. It also has better "flash" metering.

 

I have to tell you, the MP is a classic. It's what Leica was all about. In Nikon terms it would be like Nikon making a original classic "F" again, with some updates. Hand made to standards not seen in 30 years. If it were me, I'd go with the MP - a legendary classic reborn.

 

The Porsche speedster doesn't have air, heat, power windows or a lot of little nicities, but it's one hell of an auto (I don't have one, but I'd certainly like one)

Hey Ian

 

Welcome, feel free to utilize this little group. There are a lot of great people here, and a few who aren't so great.

 

Contax is a great name, and I've never heard anyone say they could see a bit of difference between the lens made in Japan or Germany. But, many useres are willing to pay more if it says "made in West Germany", and that's the difference.

 

When you take some photos, post them. I'd like to see them.

 

BTW, are you related to James Ritter? He use to post her a while back. A really nice guy

 

Best of luck

 

Rob

Although I do disagree with the statement that the 80-400mm VR isn't a proffesional grade lens. At the cost, I wouldn't consider it anything else but pro grade. Personally with the 5 yr war. from Nikon, Douglas will have no problem getting it fixed, IMHO

Thanks all for the thoughts.

 

Avery it's a giant wood caring in our city park. It's hugh, and was done by hand some 20 years ago by a traveling artisian. I live in an area of the North East where there were once a lot of Native American tribes. The "statue" is to honor the fact they once lived her. not to reproduce an actual totem pole. But it is really nice

 

Thanks again

Rob

Hi Anup

 

Extension tubes are always helpful and so are the "close up" filters.

Personally I agree with the suggestion of the 60mm f/2.8 used. It can always double as a normal lens, and will give you much better quality images than your 50mm f/1.8 - IMHO. I'd guess that you'll end up using that lens most of the time, since it is so sharp. This way you can truly determine if you like Macro. Tubes and filters on a "regular" lens may not give you true experience. True Macro lens are razor sharp.

 

Another option is the older 55mm f/2.8 Macro AIS - if the N80 will meter with AIS lens. That's something I'm not sure of. I think you'll need the PK-13 for 1 to 1 macro though. but that set would cost about $150.00 to $200.00 less than the 60mm.

 

Best of luck

Hi Todd

 

Personally as a 25 year Leica user, I don't know if the range finder is the answer. They are fun, and take amazing photos. But they are also all manual with a flash sync and "flash" metering that isn't exactly state of the art.

 

Don't get me wrong. I love leicas "M", but for weddings they may not be the answer for a pro. I used my old M6 at my cousins wedding. Loved it, took some great photos, but also missed a few. Speed is not the main attribute of the Leica M. Plus the main downfall, for many, of the rangefinder is the fact you never see the image as through the lens. That can be a draw back.

 

They are wonderful cameras. I've used them since I was a kid. But they aren't for everyone. Some people prefer the SLR design. metering is center weighted.

 

There is one other option, but it's a MF camera. The Contax Aria. Very small lightweight and easy to handle. Plus it will utilize all those wonderful Zeiss *T lens. Even th older ones made in Germany. It has Centerweighted, 5 zone averaging, and spot. The only problem with it is it's a tad unbalanced with the long zooms because there is no optional battery pack.

 

The Contax Nx is auto focus and light, but the lens selection is limited. But the 85mm is, I've been told, outstanding. Anyway it's a thought

Hi Todd

 

First off, I hope all returns to normal for you, and that your OK

 

Second, I believe the D100 is less weight than the N90s. Since it is built on the N80. Also the Kodak DCS 14N

 

Best of luck,

 

Rob

Before I went to college I wanted to get my own 35mm. I had been raised on my dad's and grand's Leicas. But I knew I'd never be able to afford them from my summer and weekend job. The local camera shop had a really clean Nikkormat and 50mm f/2 lens, and it was in my price range, so it was mine. But, they had a brand new Contax RTS with winder and 50mm Zeiss Planar lens on the top shelf of the display. Lens hood, strap and what a "jem". What a magnificent camera, and I wanted it.

 

But she was way out of my price range. But I still remember her, Porsche designed and powered with those great Zeiss lens.

Hi Gary

 

Actually, I think my favorite is number 2. I like the lighteing effect of it.

 

Thanks again, nice work

 

Rob

Here's another view<div></div>

Since this is the first time I've ever used IR film I'd like some

constructive criticism. Feel free to be honest, but please try and

be construstive also.

 

Thanks for you input<div></div>

Hi Yossi

 

I don't own the lens, So I can't give an offering. But, I like the photo allot. Well taken, and I'm impressed with it

 

Thanks for sharing

 

Rob