LenMarriott

<p>Travis, First, welcome to Photo.net. A brief visit to <a href="http://www.travischilds.com/">your website</a> tells me your contribution here would be of great value. Seriously consider posting some of your favourite images here for comment\critique and to inspire other wannabe sports photographers. I have only a few month's experience with the D5100 and only one hockey game under my belt using it and the kit 55-200mm so take my comments with a grain of salt. I agree that you've had to deal with some crappy lighting but I think that most of your shots that I see on your site could be greatly improved with a minimum of post manipulation in your program of choice. (mine being photoshop) My image quality expectations will likely be different from yours but if the decision were mine I think I'd opt for faster glass. Fast primes, as suggested, would likely yield superior results but would probably drive you whacky switching lenses at a game. That leaves fast zooms which would buy you two stops at the long end. My recent shooting experience at my one & only hockey game was under great lighting but even so most shots were at ISO 6400 (to keep the shutter speed near 1\640 sec) For me, even with some cropping, my D5100 did a more than satisfactory job providing fine image quality. Have a look at <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1064345">my most recent posts</a> to see where I am coming from. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Recent Barrie Colts Game</p>

<div></div>

<p>Nick, Thanks for the refresher course in what to avoid. We Nikon owners, D5100 specifically, and likely any DSLR owner of any brand for that matter, would be wise to heed the warning in your experience in dealing with 3rd party parts. Often the savings are short term, the aggravation likely long term. My personal philosophy (especially after your experience) is to stay with the brand where at all possible. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Sarah, Your rant makes me chuckle. Be assured you will never offend me by being too technically correct. I tend to agree with Michael Chang. There are varying degrees of 'Geek' in all of us. That said, my personal philosophy is that the content of the image trumps the technical aspects. In candid people shots expression is usually the most important element, other technical issues less so. Not to say it isn't nice when they all come together. Technical issues in portraits and landscapes, however, are usually more important because there is no excuse for poor quality where time is not of the essence. Good to hear someone sponsored you for another year. See you in 2014. Merry Christmas. LM.</p>

<p>Pat, A few minutes in Photoshop has convinced me that Howard's solution might be the best answer................ if you can do a re-take. If not, then perhaps a photoshop solution (by someone more skilled than I) would suffice. Best, LM.</p><div></div>

<p>UPS! Oh, yah, the guys who use feathers to knock on your door! :-) Kidding of course. Can't help you in your quest but couldn't pass up the opportunity to remark that you do fine work. Great photos. Good luck. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Emmet, Looks like it could possibly be caused by incomplete film coverage of the chemicals used during processing. Who did the processing, you or a lab? Tim may be on to something. Could also be that the film paper backing was loose and\or the roll was exposed to bright light for a time. (just the edges affected) Just offering possible solutions before you replace those light seals. Come back & let us know how you resolved this. Many others could benefit from your findings. Welcome to Photo.net. Best, LM. P.S. The shot labeled 'light leak top' is a vertical composition and therefore your 'top' and 'bottom' are actually the sides of the film. LM.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Ivan, Your results speak louder even than your words of praise for this system. I think most of us, whether or not we use the N1 system, would be pleased to record images as good as you have here. Since you don't have any posts at the moment I suggest you start a folder with the above. Love the cat's eyes, especially the black one. Best, LM (D5100 user)</p>

<p>Maciek, The Rolleiflex T was my main camera for about 40 years until I sold it last year. (still working, including the built in meter.) You can find many more samples from Rolleiflex T cameras, including some of mine, <a href="/gallery/tag-search/search?query_string=rolleiflex+t">here. </a> Enjoy! Best, LM.</p>

<p>Greg, I've been interested in photography since before the introduction of the technological wonder, Super Anscochrome 100 film, fastest colour film of the day. (1957) It is my opinion, having recently purchased a D5100 with the two kit lenses you mentioned, that you are on the right track. The 18-200 lens you ask about will indeed solve the problem of having to change lenses but at the same time stick you with the compromise of heavier weight and, likely slightly lower image quality. Your call; two lenses, each lighter than the 18-200 with slightly better image quality, or a single heavier lens which will do the same job. The D3100 is also a fine camera and is highly recommended. Check out Ken Rockwell's site. Sorry, big brothers at Photo.net won't allow a link to his site but I'll assume you are bright enough not to be confused by some of his inconsistencies. I can only tell you he was instrumental in helping me with my decision to buy the Nikon. So far I don't regret it. Come back & let us all know which way you went and your feelings after a couple of months experience with your new kit. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Amir, From a file of those dimensions a high quality 18" x 18" print can be made. (5256/ 300) A lower quality 29" x 29" print can also be made, (5256/180) though, since the viewing distance of the print will also be greater I doubt anyone will notice the difference. I've made many satisfactory (your mileage may vary) 12" x 18" prints at 180 px\in. Hope this helps. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Ralph, As Lex suggested, a tad of overexposure doesn't hurt. I used it at ISO 500 to keep the grain, encouraged through underexposure, at bay. See some examples <a href="/gallery/tag-search/search?query_string=superia+800&search=&sort_order=1&start_index=24&page=3">here.</a> Best, LM.</p>

<p>Sam, I've noticed this same situation with my new D5100. Just so you don't think it's your camera only. Seems to be a Nikon thing. Now that I know that this is the way it's designed I don't worry about it anymore though I agree, it would be nice to view the actual point that is in focus on the image. For a while there I thought it was my focusing technique that was at fault. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Laurence, Not a suggested permanent solution but Peter's advice is sound if you are out to prove where the trouble is. <a href="/photo/15419952">Used that technique myself </a>on a Minolta XG-M with deteriorated foam seals. That's where the trouble proved to be. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Dan, My basic setup can be found in <a href="/photo/16265053">this thread</a> (near the bottom) For low key shots <a href="/photo/15441080">like this one </a>I simply throw a black sheet that I purchased for only a few dollars over the support. It's portable but not as good as your suggestion for a collapsible one. Certainly cheaper though I'd say. Hope this helps. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Luiza, Until your first payment give the camera's flash a try. Bump the ISO up to around 1000 so the flash won't have to work too hard. (will also have the benefit (?) of helping to retain some ambient background light if your shutter speed is down around 1\60 or so) Image quality at ISO 1000 should be quite acceptable. Be aware that the using the camera's built in flash often will deplete the battery much more quickly. Could be problematic for you. Take this advice with a grain of salt. I've had my D5100 for all of two weeks now. :-) Good luck. Come back to let us know how you made out. Many could benefit from your experience. Best, LM.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>JDM or, you could <a href="/digital-camera-forum/00ZAEX">hold a pair of 7x50 binoculars in front of a P&S.</a> :-) I agree with Rick, great write up. Very entertaining. I'm from the time when one could actually buy accessories from Spiratone. I had a 1960's Spiratone polarizing filter for my Rolleiflex T until I sold all last year. Thanks for the nostalgic trip down memory lane. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Naomi, I see no sharpness issues with any of your linked photos. Most would be quite happy with your results. If you really perceive a sharpness issue with your photos then better glass is likely the answer (though I think better technique is the answer for your original example) You could start your search for superior glass<a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/834|0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/680|0/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28appareil3%29/441|0/%28brand3%29/Nikon"> here.</a> Best, LM.</p>

<p>Naomi, Why not try renting the Nikon 35mm f1.8 prime (supposedly a very sharp lens) for a day of shooting and compare the results from it with your existing lenses. Great advice about using a tripod. You might also want to consider <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharp.shtml">this article on sharpness</a>. Let us know how you make out & tell us if\how you've resolved your problems. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Nick, Incomplete fixing? Too wide of a temperature spread between developer, stop, and fixer? (reticulation of emulsion) Sorry but I'm reaching. It's been a long time since I developed B&W film at home. Keep us updated if you find the solution for sure. Many could benefit from your experience. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Ian, I had the<a href="/medium-format-photography-forum/00XWtT"> same sad problem </a>with my SQ Ai. The kind people at Tamron USA were kind enough to supply me with a new one. (which I then taped over to prevent another loss). Good luck.</p>

<p>Douglas, <a href="/photos/LenMarriott">Every shot I have posted</a> has been edited to suit my tastes. If you don't like a particular shot of mine imagine how you'd feel had I not attempted to 'improve' it. It's always desirable to come as close as you can in camera but seldom achievable. (my opinion) I figure it's all part of the routine in getting an image from camera capture to screen or print. The key is to keep any post exposure to a minimum, making any changes transparent or invisible to the viewer. Welcome to PN, by the way! Don't be a stranger! Best, LM.</p>