This is great...does signalandpower sell it directly?
Yep, just call them (no online ordering). I believe they are $6 ea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_mocok
It's as if I can see a bit of the circular motion of how I clean the lens from the mark. It's not really a mark actually, but it's there and I can see it if I look very closely. ... Do you have the same problem or maybe it's the lenspen? Or am I being too anal?
Nope you ain't too anal Yep; it's no big deal, it is just the way the lens pen works most of the time, when you get too much solution on the applicator. I found it too difficult to use. Now I just have filters on the lenses and use a Microdear cloth that is always in a bag and dedicated to lens use. I actually have another one that I use for filter cleaning, and another for Camera Body use. This way, it keeps the more soiled items on one cloth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer
After using one in the store last week, I have some serious D200 envy! ... Of course going straight from a manual-enabled P&S to a D200 seems a bit crazy, as would dumping an extra $400 on a camera body that will likely be worth next to nothing in a few years (at least at the pace digital cameras are currently advancing). But I'll be damned if I didn't love operating that camera! The craftsmanship and thoughtfulness of the whole package was ever so enticing! And then comes the lens buying fury, aaaarrrrgh!
NAS is becoming strong with you, Iron Dreamer. It's a great camera, and one that's been pretty easy to get used to coming from a D2h. It actually doesn't seem to be crazy, as you'll probably keep the body for many years. 10.2M is a really nice pixel count and you pretty much should be satisfied until Full Frame Imagers get affordable (2010, I guess!). Keep in mind you really should not be concerned with the "advancements" from this point, other than Full Frame, as the improvements will become more subtle relating to sensor quality and size; although we may start seeing more HD imagers.
The nice thing about the Nikon System is the lens investment.
Well, ive been seriously considering getting a DSLR or a simpler POS camera (soley for the reason it can take videos).
Now the decision if i go DSLR D40 or a D50. The only thing that is holding me back (considering i dont know too much about photography) is that the D40 cannot take AF lenses correct? whilst the D50 can take both AF and AF-S.
Would this be a considerate drawback?? I read a comment by someone saying that it would be a shame to regret getting a D40 over a D50 due to the lense options. The 3 vs 5 point focus is also something which i dont understand too well, how much so would this make the D50 a better camera overall??
I am however drawn to the smaller size of the D40, being that i would not be doing anything professional, most of my shots would be a hobby type thing, making it more convenient bringing it around with friends etc etc
Now i know this is a Nikon thread, but i think it would just be a waste to open a new thread to compare this vs a pos with video capabilities (please dont take this as a brand war, more of a decision i want to make between the styles of cameras). If not i can chuck this post into another thread so it doesnt clog this thread up
__________________
Meizu M6 || Laptop || Ipod Classic 80gb -> LDM+ (for sale if anyone wants) -> K81DJ || CX300
Previously used:
30g Ipod Vid *Now dead due to ONE LITTLE DROP*
Yes, D200 is a very good camera indeed (even for the price. It's around AUS$ 2,000 here), and with the build like that, it will last you a long time.
But if your budget doesn't allow, D80 will do you just fine. I actually prefer D80 in some parts, such as the lighter weight (although I prefer the size of D70), and the picture viewing zoom is much better than D200. With D200 if you wanna zoom to check focus accuracy, you have to hold the button and rotate the dial, then release, then use the arrow, whereas with D80, you just need to press the zoom button and use arrow to navigate. It may seem minor, but it's much more convenient.
D200's biggest advantage to me IMHO is the metering ability with AI lenses, but then if you don't own old lenses, this is not relevant.
Some people like the weather sealing, but I don't shoot in extreme condition, so weather sealing isn't really a big deal for me.
The size and feel of D200 in your hand is also a big yes factor for me. But then, my partner prefers D80 since it fits her hand better. So actually camera body is quite individual and depends on your shooting style/purpose.
But regardless of D200 or D80 (or even other brand within similar calibre), like Stevesurf implied, I think they are really good enough for most use already, don't have to worry so much about "getting outdated in a year or two".
I mean, they can take gorgeous pictures, even enlarged, fast enough, smart enough, solid enough, what else do you really need? Maybe more batteries, thats all, hehe...
Unless my camera broke early, I'd probably wait for an affordable full frame too if I decided to upgrade in the future, considering I honestly think I don't need any additional features at this stage (want, yes, but maybe not need).
About lenspen, so the smudge there was because of there was a little bit too much solution? I've been thinking it's because of it's not "wet" enough that's why it didn't clear that well. Perhaps I should try to find a really good grade microfibre cloth to wipe the lenspen residue after cleaning it. We don't have that particular microdear cloth here, and it's a bit too much hassle to have it ship to Australia.
To perplex: AI lenses will work fine with d70 and d50, but only in manual mode, so no auto metering available. I personally think it's quite okay, it will force you to learn more accurate exposure and the lens will be much much more solid compared to current generation AF lens. But if you shoot lots of moving objects, you'd better off with AF version I reckon.
Well, ive been seriously considering getting a DSLR or a simpler POS camera (soley for the reason it can take videos).
Now the decision if i go DSLR D40 or a D50. The only thing that is holding me back (considering i dont know too much about photography) is that the D40 cannot take AF lenses correct? whilst the D50 can take both AF and AF-S.
Would this be a considerate drawback?? I read a comment by someone saying that it would be a shame to regret getting a D40 over a D50 due to the lense options. The 3 vs 5 point focus is also something which i dont understand too well, how much so would this make the D50 a better camera overall??
I am however drawn to the smaller size of the D40, being that i would not be doing anything professional, most of my shots would be a hobby type thing, making it more convenient bringing it around with friends etc etc
Now i know this is a Nikon thread, but i think it would just be a waste to open a new thread to compare this vs a pos with video capabilities (please dont take this as a brand war, more of a decision i want to make between the styles of cameras). If not i can chuck this post into another thread so it doesnt clog this thread up
Machi, what do you think mobile phones are for? Mobile phones are for taking videos, not to communicate! :allteeth:
But seriously, if you just want to have a hassle free camera, practical, good for taking friends' pictures, etc, you don't really need a DSLR for that. High end prosumer camera can take beautiful pictures, and you don't have to worry about camera weight, dirty sensor, changing lens, etc... and due to size you'll probably take it out with you more often than a DSLR.
But if you wanna go DSLR, if you asked me for a really basic setup, I'd probably settle with a D50 body + 50mm 1.8 AF. That should provide enough fun and quality for most occassion.
Duh phones are for taking videos, pay phones are for making calls
Aii, i think im almost trying to convince myself to get a DSLR. But after taking some photos with my dads slr, they just seem so much more full and interactive than a point and shoot.
I geuss if it comes down to it, i'd like to get both with my own money, and most likely the DSLR first, since almost everyone in my family has a point n shoot.
Thanks for the feedback mocok, much appreciated. Just to be that extra bit annoying, i get the feeling u dislike the D40, and if so, what makes it so bad :P Im moreso looking for the capability issues that make the D40 or a D50 a better option :P
__________________
Meizu M6 || Laptop || Ipod Classic 80gb -> LDM+ (for sale if anyone wants) -> K81DJ || CX300
Previously used:
30g Ipod Vid *Now dead due to ONE LITTLE DROP*
No I don't dislike D40, I just prefer other models (but it's me personally, don't take this as generalisation).
If you asked me, I'd get D40 over point&shoot based from picture quality alone.
But yeah, I don't like D40 (did I just say I didn't dislike D40? :allteeth: ) because of these factors:
1. Too damn small it feels awkward (no problem if you actually like small form factor)
2. Need AF-S lenses, means you're missing lots of nice AF lenses out there (no problem if you only wanna use the kit lens or you don't mind using AF-S only). Some people think they can "get away" with D40 + some MF oldies, but for MF works, it's better to use either D80 or D200 or D2X cause they got bigger viewfinders.
3. Not enough hard buttons. I prefer a camera with aperture wheel on the front and shutter speed on the back so I can easily change them. I also prefer easy to access ISO and white balance (don't really need hard buttons for image quality). (but again, no problem if you shoot mainly in P/auto mode, or you don't change aperture that often).
4. Too damn small
5. Overly small for a DSLR
6. Need size enlargement.
But I reckon one of the BIGGEST, unspoken advantages of DSLR over Point&shoot is... behold... the shutter sound. :allteeth:
Seriously, it gives you a much better feeling when you click it and hear that real shutter sound instead of that wimpy 'click click' of point&shoot (even worse, the artificial shutter sound from P&S speaker).
Different camera got different shutter sound too. eg. The D200 got a louder, more satisfying shutter sound compared to cheaper sound of D80. But if you don't like louder & more solid sound, I guess the opposite works for you. I reckon you go to nearest shop and double blind test the shutter sound, see which one you prefer.
And you asked why I like D50? Well, it's bigger. Takes AF lenses. But still no front wheel though. Don't cross D70s just because they are old. teamed with AF lens, D70s is still a joy to use.
The cheapest Australian camera shop that I've found so far: D-D-Photographics.
Yes, it's a "grey" market item, but at least they take care of you. If it's broken under warranty, sent the camera to them, they will take care of it (they will ship it back to whereever they got it from for you) and you don't have to worry about anything.
And the guy I talked to there, was much better than the majority of sales assistants I talked to at brick&mortar shops. But they don't have D50 or D70s though, I guess they are getting discontinued already?
This shop here got a D70s, it has great prices too, but a bit more expensive than D-D. But at the moment they have D70s body for AUS$ 935.
But those 2 shops don't really have display stuffs; since you can pick up the item yourself, basically you only go there once you've made up your mind and ready to buy.
If you're not so used to Nikon interface yet or own Nikon lens yet, try Canon too, who knows you like it.
I always shoot in RAW, but when I'm taking a shot in incandescent light, I manually set the white balance to Tungsten. Generally, I find it to be decent with reguard to the look of a shot. I can always tweak it later from a WhiBal test shot anyway.
I don't use UV filters. I've seen threads on fredmiranda where some guy was complaining about his new $1600 70-200VR lens giving awful images. After three pages of tests and comments, somebody asked if he was using any sort of filter on the lens. Took the $20 filter off, and suddenly the lens was perfect. I refuse to pay such large amounts of money for a lens, only to put a $20 piece of glass in front of it. I used to be high-quality filters for all my lenses, but realized life is short and things break, but I'd rather have a better image than whine about cleaning my glass once a month. I do like to use a filter whenever I'm on the beach shooting though, salty wind can get really nasty.
Your other thread inspired me to break out my own 35mm f/1.4 AIS lens the other night. I threw it on the mount and hopefully will get to use it within the next week or two. I really never gave it much of a chance, but now that I have full metering use with it (yay D2x!) I will give it a shot. I love that it's even closer to the ~50mm FOV too. I looked up my serial number on that webpage and found out that I have the f/16 9-blade version. I also dug up an old e-mail from the ebay auction, and found that I paid $355 for it when I got it. I knew that $460 seemed a little pricey to me...
Hope your lens gets there safe and soon!
i also try to avoid the nikon indoor wb setting and use tungsten instead. seems to have a more natural look to it.
as for adding a uv filter to the end of an expensive lens, i've had some bad experience with that also. during my sister's wedding, i was shooting with a 50mm/f1.4 and while all seemed ok when i previewed it on the LCD, i had horrible glare and some weird reflections when viewed on my computer. it really ruined my shots. after that, i've decided to not use a filter anymore and avoid those problems. lenses are a complicated system of optics and putting another piece of glass in front of that system, that wasn't designed into for that system, probably doesn't help.
lenses will last a long time with care. i'd rather have a better picture than to worry about scratching my lens. besides, as long as you have a hood in place, it'll also provide some protection. also, from what i understand camera shops push filters on their customers as they make a good profit margin from the filter.
__________________ feedback
Music on Rotation | Estelle - Shine | Jeff Tain Watts - Detained | Grand Avenue - The Outside
Has anyone ever used the 50mm f1.4 AI? is it just as sharp as the AF version?
I think I'm about to face a huge struggle considering the D70 will be my first DSLR and to put icing on the cake, I'll only have a manual lens :veryevil: .
I wouldn't use $20 one either, but the Nikon one is quite good filter I think.
You paid a very good price for your AIS, but I still think $460 is still a good price, considering the rarity of the lens especially in mint condition.
By the way, do you happen to have the link to that comparison (filter/no filter) images? I'm curious to see how much degradation it makes.
I guess I didn't realize how expensive a lens it was. Guess I did get a good deal, my front element doesn't even look like it's ever been breathed on. I love buying stuff BEFORE it's been discontinued...
Unfortunately, FM's search function is completely worthless, and I don't even think their threads manage to stick around after two months, let alone a year. I tried to search but could not come up with the link, sorry. Wish I had saved those files, I could barely believe what I saw.
A piece of glass is a piece of glass. Nikon's filters are expensive, but as far as I have read, most people seem to feel that B+W's are the best. I used to use Super-HMC1 Hoya filters when I bought--wasted money on--them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jewman
I just wish Nikon would have produced an f90x with built-in exposure bracketing and maybe a built-in flash, but alas, they've stopped producing film SLR's altogether.
Actually, they still manufacture 2 film bodies: the completely astounding F6, and the cheap beginner-body FM10. They discontinued all of their other film models, as well as the majority of their older prime lenses. *sigh*
__________________
there was no tomorrows
we'd packed away our sorrows
and we saved them for a rainy day
Yep; it's no big deal, it is just the way the lens pen works most of the time, when you get too much solution on the applicator. I found it too difficult to use. Now I just have filters on the lenses and use a 
.
