User_6502147

<p>Nice work.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Drum scanners are better and cost more.</p>

<div></div>

<p>An emergency vehicle sliding through the frame....somewhat different than lightning. Some action is good.</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>We've been getting plenty of these kind of melancholic days....</p><div></div>

<p>If you intend to use longer lenses or top-heavy as LF is, you'll always have issues. Lots of talk on photo forums what constitutes decent support. Thom Hogan claims he can save you $700, by purchasing good tripod first time out....hmmm, he may have something there. Indeed, middle column eventually will wiggle (in your case it's immediate) and you'll get more stability if you get a tripod that has 3 legs and no middle column. True, they may be more expensive, but......</p> <p>Bit surprising that final inspection at Manfrotto didn't catch this issue.</p> <p>One more point to drive this convo, which I see it on my local CL, a guy who is selling 8 tripods for $10. They all seem to be ultra wobbly. Perhaps he has learned something ? Yet, no one is buying for months :>).</p> <p>Les</p> <p> </p>

<p>These one-lens-wonders P&S that could go to F2.8 or better, they will likely be more costly....even more so than lightly used DX model. I'd nudge her (her parents) to a decent camera body + a lens or two (primes ?). The main thing is that she truely understands what it takes to obtain a good photo, and that means frame aesthetics and how the items of the "triangle" intermingle: aperture, shutter and ISO's. Sure, there is more, but many people don't get the basics and they struggle (look at the net). The point I'm making is, that she could pick up (later later) any camera, whether it's expensive or not, and make a wonderful image. Not sure that I can state that knowledge trumps technology, but one can produce some interesting and nice images if both are utilized intelligently.</p> <p>Good luck choosing.</p> <p>Les</p>

<div></div>

<p>Maybe something exotic like Zeiss 135/2....for some tight portraits ?</p> <p>Les</p>

<p>Bit of a down time for this maestro of fishing.</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Yes, DX (such as Nikon D7100 or D7200 have a smaller sensor) and their prices are lower: saw refurbished for $579 and $759 respectively. Compared to FX models, such as D750 or D610 (both 24MP) will go for over $1700 and 1496 - the latter ones were brand new (not refurbished). Prices change, as you know. Anyway, DX cameras are wonderful for reach and are usually bit smaller....many wildlife photographers prefer it. There have been many discussions that the DX format is not being treated with respect and there seem to be lack of good wide angle lenses for them. FX models require bulkier lenses (and longer) to accomplish the same as DX models, tho some find the bokeh more pleasing as the DOF is thinner. Some of the DX models, such as D7200, and the new D500, catch up with high ISO's of the FX models, making them less noisy when the light becomes somewhat murky. Both, the DX and FX models can utilize the same optics, with a caveat that DX lens on an FX camera will be quite limiting and not cover the entire view. Anyway, there are certain differences and no camera is perfect....much depends on personal needs.</p> <p>The DX camera sensor amplifies the photo 1.5X (Nikon), but also increases your DOF some....and that helps in taking macro photos. In FX macro has a v. thin margin and it requires higher F-stops....I use F11 to F22 on regular basis.</p> <p>If the lens has a Nikon bayonet mount, then it will work with recent DSLR's. My 70-210/3.5 was bought in 1981 (glass still in perfect condition) and it works perfectly on my DSLR. I can't vouch for any other makes.</p> <p>I'm in total agreement, it's a hefty lens. Your call on this.<br> Les<br> </p>

<div></div>

<p>Haven’t seen any Konica cams on the market….and the Vivitar Ser 1 lens was made in several variations….Ken Rockwell’s site has some info on this lens….not that I’m his fan. I get it why you feel so strongly about the Vivitar zoom… and don’t despair, since they are still available.<br /><br />From your description, It’s likely that you’ve had the Vivitar 70-210/3.5 version. It’s a weird lens and unless it was collimated properly, this glass is nothing to howl about (my copy) = soft. Yet, the macro portion (technically a 1:2) is v. good and I would easily put it up there among macro lenses in $500-800 range. By the way, Tamron and Sigma have come a long way since the ‘80s and they make better optics…..some even surpass Nikon/Canons in similar range. I have seen this lens for sale on CL, usually at $40-100 price…either in Canon or in Nikon mount. Although this zoom will pair up effortlessly on most current Nikon DSLR’s (older DX models maybe no), there will be some difficulties, to my knowledge, in pairing it up to most recent Canon rigs, since they’ve changed the lens mount on their cameras.<br /><br />As to digital cameras, there is no reason for concern, they can work similarly to film….and they have many more options. As Stephen mentioned, there is bit of a learning curve and you can follow this up on that with the camera manual, web info, books or you can even pop some questions here on Pnet. Hope you had a chance to see some digi cam options. Although DX is great for certain purposes (and more reasonable), I happen to have FX rig (24MP) and am quite content with it. <br /><br />Good luck choosing. If you really want to return to the 70-210 zoom, my hand could be twisted :>) and I could let go of my copy (for a price), since I mostly use Tammy 90/2.8 now.<br /><br />Les<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Dragged this out of archives....from a larger <em>drone</em>.</p><div></div>