scott_carlsson

What about cheap film in SF?

 

I would try Calumet on Bryant-

 

http://www.calumetphoto.com/

"raise your fee to offset the profit loss and stick to your pro lab"

 

That's the issue, because I like the results from the pro lab, and feel somewhat more at ease bringing the work there.

 

Although there's one little thing with the Frontier in general, why no custom backprinting option? Maybe that's best left for a new post.

 

Thanks all for the huge response.

Specifically, in regards to Frontier printing with film based work. I

have a local Long's that I bring my own snappy stuff to- one friendly

and seemingly well trained operator there 5 days a week. My pro lab

that also uses a Frontier gets all my wedding work. Although the pro

lab runs about twice the cost per roll, I feel they do a better job.

The prints do look consistently better to me, they do use Fuji Pro

paper, not Crystal Archive( I don't know if that is why it looks

better).

 

So, in my case I have to say that I do see a consistent difference,

I'm willing to lose a little profit margin and continue with the pro

lab. I'll get to my question, if everything is equal, why use the pro

lab? Should paid wedding photographers use "pro" labs?

Exactly what Hal said. I use them with two F100 bodies and the SB-28 and SB-80, when I don't need the Quantum Turbo. Also, they have the added bonus of being half the weight of alkalines.

I'd still buy the 28-105.

Supposedly a great lens and a great bargain, in the style/family of the 35-70 f2.8. Check KEH.com, I've seen a couple there recently for around $200.00 and under. This fellow raves about it.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

This place has been around for 30 years. They're in Mountain View. I was happy with my Rolleiflex repair/CLA over the years. Not cheap of course.

 

http://www.ictcamera.com/

Find a used SB-28/DX if less than $200.00, otherwise SB-80DX, imho.

Easily the best 35mm camera I've owned. I also have an F3HP, F4s, and 2 FM2's. Years ago I had Canon equip., an A1 and a "new" F1.

 

I've rented F5's on many occasions as backups for wedding photography, but imo it has nothing on the F100- considering it's TWICE the price.

You're better off with the SB-80DX, about $325.00, but a MUCH better flash.

Imo, it's an overpriced toy($1100.00USD). Save your money and buy a D100 or Fuji S2.

...what dan tong said.

Buy a Vivitar 285HV, well worth it at $80.00-90.00. Always nice to have a backup anyway.

Seems like a nice camera, no doubt-for $3500.00-4000.00. The fact that it's more Fuji than Hassy doesn't bother me. But $6000.00 w/lens and a back? Who's gonna buy this thing?

 

Well, not me anyway.

Has anyone owned both? Is the 24-85 clearly superior optically as I've read?

 

The 24-120 is not rated very well anywhere that it's rated, in fact it seems to be a poor performer, is considered soft, and too slow at f5.6. Also, it's expensive new. If I'm not mistaken, the 24-85 was designed to replace it. You might consider the 28-105 also.

The early F100 rewind prong had sort of stubby forks, the newer cameras have longer forks, but still plastic. I've heard of a home-made modification that uses an F3?, or an F5 metal prong. My F100 has the newer prong, and after ~300 rolls- no problems.

The Manfrotto/Bogen 3021 is fine, the 3030 is a decent, inexpensive panhead. Get the Kirk BH-3 ball-head, and be all set for under $400.00.

I gotta agree with Ken Rockwell on the N90/F90 when he comments-

"This camera is obsolete. You may still find it new today, however the F100 costs just a little bit more ($1,100 vs. $700) and completely eclipses it. It was discontinued in May, 2001 but I still see it out there.

 

Likewise, featurewise the N80 is a better camera albeit less sturdy, and the N80 costs less ($450 vs. $700).

 

The N90s and N60 are the most primitive cameras sold by Nikon today. It only has one AF sensor and has no real depth-of-field preview, unlike all the others. The N90s DOF button is not smart enough to stop down to the aperture selected by the camera in the various modes, unlike all the other cameras that do.

 

The only advantages I can see for the N90s are that it runs longer on a set of AA batteries than the F5 or F100. The N90s is sturdier and has a full 1/250 flash sync compared to the N80 or N65.

 

Then again, if you want well built, long battery life and 1/250 flash sync, get a better built manual focus FM2 or FM3a that runs years on a watch battery for less money.

 

The N90s' motors sound like a toy compared to the F100 and F5. I also think it is louder than any of them, but double check me on that. I think the N65 and N80 now sound more refined".

 

If you're looking for an upgrade, the F5 is nice, but expensive. Perhaps a used D1x could be considered as well.

"What planet are you from? The F100 is plastic inside, that's PLASTIC!!! On the outside, it is made of some composite shell, but on the inside, well, it's not Titanium (like the F5). As for "the best film body Nikon makes", where is the Mirror Lock-UP facility, and the lack of a 100% viewfinder, interchangable viewfinders, or a manual film rewind? These are things even the Twenty year old F4 has. So you should watch yourself when you say "it is the best FILM camera that Nikon ever made". You sound like one of those STUPID Nikon Sales Reps, who can't even take decent pictures."

 

Well, I'm not a sales rep, not even a stupid Nikon sales rep. You sound like one of the teeny-boppers on some Ford vs. Chevy internet board. I'll stand by my comments about the F100 being the best body- value wise if nothing else. I sold an N90s to make way for the F100, so I know the camera. I also have an F4s, an F3HP and an FM2. The F100 is the money maker for me. If you're offended because you own an N90 and feel hurt, I can't help you. The F5 currently is at ~$1900.00- almost twice the cost of the F100.

It just ain't twice the camera.

The F100 is the best film body Nikon makes, in value no doubt, in performance equal if not faster than the F5-and imagine this-the focus points actually light up! At half the price, it's a no-brainer anyway. And the plastic N90s is not in the same league, and at almost $700.00 new, is not a worthy option- not to mention is a 10+ year old design.

keeping up appearances

ready and waiting

<img src=http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1215539&size=md>

Have you considered the Nikkor 28-105 f3.5-4.5D ?

It's a great lens at a dirt cheap price.

Bjorn reviews it also.

Forget about those three and look into the Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5. Nice lens and dirt cheap.

Actually, at the local Home Depot the Lithiums sell for $4.17+tax per 2-pack, locally, nobody else seems even close to this price. Long's has them for about $10.00 per 2-pack.