[warpdriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach I own the 18-55 DX for use on my D50 and have a friend with the 18-70. For the money, I would stick with the 18-55

I find the 18-55 just doesn't have enough reach for a general always-on-camera lens. It's all preference, with the 18-55, I'd always be carrying other lenses around, whereas the 18-70 seems to have enough range and quickness that it can stay on the camera for longer. I don't like getting dust onto the sensor and that what was happening with the 18-55 because I was always switching lens.

 

[go_vtec]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 Lenses, especially the good ones, like Canon's L series lenses, really hold their value. I see closed auctions on Ebay for FD lenses I used to own back in the mid 80's, and the prices are about what I paid for them new. In some cases, even more, for some of the more rare lenses.

You are absolutely right. I remember selling a couple of L zoom lenses (28-70/70-200) for virtually the same prices I bought 'em. They do hold their values... too bad I can't say the same for the film camera bodies

 

[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeggy Nice, congrats on the new toy. I miss good cameras, just can't afford them these days. My last 2 decent cameras were a Contax RTS and a Nikon F3. Both cost me fortunes with motordrives, lenses and other paraphenalia. I miss those days. Glad to see others enjoying the hobby.

Give me a Nikon F3hp with a J screen, a 50mm f/1.2, and a few rolls of Tri-X and I am in heaven. That camera just makes you feel like you're doing something important. However, often as not, I'm schlepping my D70 around.

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSmith08 Give me a Nikon F3hp with a J screen, a 50mm f/1.2, and a few rolls of Tri-X and I am in heaven. That camera just makes you feel like you're doing something important. However, often as not, I'm schlepping my D70 around.

I still have the first F-1n body and motor drive I ever bought, back in 1983. It's equipped with Canon's Speedfinder (rotates between eye-level and waist-level wiewing, plus you can see the entire finder from 2" away), matte screen w/2% spot metering, and a Canon 200 f/4 macro lens. Weighs 6 3/4 lbs. Great macro rig, the 200 f/4 macro was one of the best lenses Canon ever made. I still use it from time to time, at least until I can afford a similar macro for my 20D.

Something about the old pro bodies that just kind of oozes quality. You pick it up, and it feels like you could use it to drive nails. (Some of them look as if they were used to drive nails, actually. PJ's are tough on their gear, but that's why it was built like a tank in the first place.)

 

[Dimitris]

If you guys are going to use a 17-200mm lense then why didnt you get another camera with not removable lense?The quality out of such a lense is at least poor. In order to get the best quality you can get (and if you buy a DSLR i guess thats what you are after) you need to use good glass and most of the times thats prime lenses. If you know what short of photography you like then you should get a dedicated prime lense for it. Portraits - 85mm , Landscapes - 24mm etc etc.

 

[Dimitris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 Since I got my Canon 20D in mid November last year, I've shot nearly 6000 exposures. I shoot slide film exclusively when I shoot film. Cost of film + processing is about $15. 6000 shots is 166 36-exposure rolls of film @ $15/roll, which is $2500 in film and processing. $2500 is what I paid for the camera + 2 Canon L lenses (17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L). If you shoot a lot, I think digital is worth it, especially as fewer places are processing film these days. I've had to quit shooting Kodachrome, since the 7-10 day turnaround time is way too long. (Back in the day, when Kodak actually processed film, I got 24 hour service on Kodachrome). Add in being able to print at home the same day, and you just can't beat it. I shot large format (4x5) almost exclusively for about 15 years. I'm having to re-train myself to shoot more exposures of a scene. It's a totally different mind-set when shooting digital. If you want to take 200 shots of a single flower from 10 different angles, no biggie. You have much more freedom to explore, and I find I like that aspect of it very much. I'm very close to selling the large format stuff, so I'll have $$$ to invest in gear I'll actually use. I really want to do wildlife/nature stuff, and long fast lenses cost huge $$$. I'd hate to get rid of the stuff, since I've had it for so long, but if I don't use it, it does me no good.

The only question i have for you is if you really needed all these 6000 shots. I have a Canon 20d myself and i think that it makes me too lazy. Most of the times I wont try to get the best shot like i would when i was shooting film. Also i really love watching my slides on my wall from my leica projector! Of course digital has huge advantages but sometimes its nice to go back and see if something new really helps you do something better.

 

[seeberg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jumpinjohn1234 Just a question, I considering getting a nikon d50 just start in the world of DSLR. I'm considering the standard 18-55 that you can buy with the nikon d50 as a set. I'm also considering Nikon AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (cheap zoom $150) Would this be an ideal set? I plan on not upgrading and just sticking to these for the next couple of years. Just want something to keep me happy and that will perfrom a little above average for me.

My D50 has both of those lenses, and I would imagine they will do most of what you will need them to, and you can resell them if you find they aren't your thing. IMHO they give great results if the person making the image puts more skill into their shots than simply depending on their equipment to do their thinking for them.
Quote:

Originally Posted by wali Use a DSLR like a light meter and to compose the shot, then shoot it with your large format.

That's what I'd most likely do if I get a 124G, but I'd want to actually have a GPS checkpoint made in case I can't get the shot when I first see it

Seriously, I'd need to be making some bucks to be able to do that.

,
Abe

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris If you guys are going to use a 17-200mm lense then why didnt you get another camera with not removable lense?The quality out of such a lense is at least poor. In order to get the best quality you can get (and if you buy a DSLR i guess thats what you are after) you need to use good glass and most of the times thats prime lenses. If you know what short of photography you like then you should get a dedicated prime lense for it. Portraits - 85mm , Landscapes - 24mm etc etc.

Hardly. Will a 17-200 Lens perform as stunningly at extremes as a $1200 17-55 lens paired with a $1500 70-200? No. But to call the quality "Poor" is flat-out wrong. Spend some time with a decent lens (the Nikkor 18-200VR for instance) before you make such a judgement.

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris The only question i have for you is if you really needed all these 6000 shots. I have a Canon 20d myself and i think that it makes me too lazy. Most of the times I wont try to get the best shot like i would when i was shooting film. Also i really love watching my slides on my wall from my leica projector! Of course digital has huge advantages but sometimes its nice to go back and see if something new really helps you do something better.

I guess that depends how you define lazy. Is it lazier to just take one or two views of a scene, and call it done, or to shoot many views and look through them to see what works best? Just shooting randomly isn't the answer either - that's laziness. If you really walk around a scene, and think about what you are shooting, and why you are shooting it, then digital is an excellent tool to learn. The immediate feedback allows you to explore ideas in real-time, or close to it. If you wave the camera around like a machine gun, then I think you aren't learning, and that to me is lazy. A million monkeys with a million cameras aren't going to duplicate Ansel Adams.

One thing to consider is how pros shoot. A guy shooting for National Geographic, on assignment to China, will spend a month and take thousands of images. He doesn't come back with 10 rolls of Kodachrome, or fill a couple flash cards, and call it done. I used to shoot for an agency, and the one thing I had pounded into me was that film is the cheapest thing you have. Time and travel are expensive, film is cheap. Shoot as much as you can. Since digital is essentially free (memory cards aside), there is no reason not to shoot large amounts of images. You may well end up with something you never though of when you first approached the scene. Film cost is one of the things that holds us back from experimenting. When "film" is free, not shooting a lot is lazy. Note, however, that there needs to be though behind the shots.

If you aren't trying to always get the best shot, then you are wasting your time. I spend a lot of time on my shots, I take classes, enter competitions, etc., so I can improve my craft. I've been shooting for over 40 years, and I'm still learning.

 

[Whorehay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 Since I got my Canon 20D in mid November last year, I've shot nearly 6000 exposures. I shoot slide film exclusively when I shoot film. Cost of film + processing is about $15. 6000 shots is 166 36-exposure rolls of film @ $15/roll, which is $2500 in film and processing. $2500 is what I paid for the camera + 2 Canon L lenses (17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L). If you shoot a lot, I think digital is worth it, especially as fewer places are processing film these days. I've had to quit shooting Kodachrome, since the 7-10 day turnaround time is way too long. (Back in the day, when Kodak actually processed film, I got 24 hour service on Kodachrome). Add in being able to print at home the same day, and you just can't beat it.

I've put ~5000 shots on my E-300 and I am glad I chose to do digital rather than get a cheaper film SLR to "learn" on. I think it is so much easier to learn on digital.. you can see your mistakes instantly, etc. You know what I am talking about.

But especially at the time I bought my dSLR last year, film SLRs were so much cheaper. However, I was willing to pay for the convenience of digital. I don't regret it one bit.

But I do want to get one of those Leica MPs to play with.

Too many expensive hobbies are bad

 

[wali]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 I've actually done that, but the fact remains that 4x5 is both expensive and inconvenient to shoot. It costs $5.50 to $6.50 per shot when shooting sheet film. Roll film is cheaper (I have a roll film back.) One of the main issues is transportation and setup. The equipment is heavy, requires a heavier tripod, and takes time, like tens of minutes, to set up, adjust the movements, get focused, etc. Having to carry both the DSLR and lenses, and the 4x5 and lenses, really limits your mobility. When I was 20 something, I though nothing of lugging the 4x5, 27 lb tripod, film, lenses, spotmeter, etc. on a hike. Now that I'm pushing 50, that's not as attractive an option. I love the look of 4x5, and if you want large prints, it's definitely the way to go. I know if I sold it all, I would probably regret it, which is one of the things holding me back from doing that. I am planning to sell off one little used, very high-dollar lens. I may be able to get enough for it to afford a decent telephoto, so I could do the nature stuff I want. (Actually, if I did sell it, I would have come full circle, since I sold a lot of very high-dollar 35mm stuff a long time ago so I could switch to large format. The gear has more than paid for itself over the years, so it wouldn't be a financial loss to me.)

Tachihara 4x5 is lightweight and an excellent camera, plus it costs only $700 Link.

Here is some more info: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/tachihara.htm

I should also mention that with large format one does not take many photos, so the $7 cost of sheet is worthwhile if you're shooting occasionally and in optimum condition.

A photographer needs to keep fit, and age is no excuse.

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali Tachihara 4x5 is lightweight and an excellent camera, plus it costs only $700 Link. Here is some more info: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/tachihara.htm I should also mention that with large format one does not take many photos, so the $7 cost of sheet is worthwhile if you're shooting occasionally and in optimum condition. A photographer needs to keep fit, and age is no excuse.

What you say is all very true. You do shoot less with a LF camera. I have actually considered a lighter field camera as an option. My current system is two Sinar F-series cameras, which weigh about 8 lbs. each. They are really meant more for architecture/studio work than landscape work. I have plenty of glass, maybe a more portable camera is the answer. Landscapes require fewer movements than studio work, so the cameras tend to be smaller and lighter.

While I am in reasonable shape, I'm not a big guy, so there is a limit to what I'm willing/able to carry. I have back and neck problems from three car accidents, nothing really major, but it does limit me to at least a small degree.

This is the lens I want to sell. I have the 800mm version of this lens. Current price new is $2899, if you can find one. Nikon is no longer in the LF lens market, so the supply is drying up on these guys. Mine requires 22" of bellows at infinity, and two tripods to support it. Needless to say, it hasn't seen a lot of use and is in pristine condition.

BTW, that is a beautiful camera.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

 

[Dimitris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach Hardly. Will a 17-200 Lens perform as stunningly at extremes as a $1200 17-55 lens paired with a $1500 70-200? No. But to call the quality "Poor" is flat-out wrong. Spend some time with a decent lens (the Nikkor 18-200VR for instance) before you make such a judgement.

You are still comparing a zoom lense to another zoom lense. I find my 70-200 2.8L lacking compared to my 135L or 85L. Having a Nikon system as well, I know that my 80-200 F2.8 lacks compared to my 85mm 1.4. You said that the 18-200VR isnt better than the Nikon 80-200 so you can imagine what the difference between a 85mm 1.4 and the 18-200 is even bigger. IMHO zooms can get close to primes in terms of sharpness but there are other things like bokeh, colour and bigger apertures. I can imagine that bokeh of 18-200VR @ 200 and its maximum aperture of f5.6 which is its maximum and I bet not very sharp isnt something to crave about.

 

[wali]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 This is the lens I want to sell. I have the 800mm version of this lens. Current price new is $2899, if you can find one. Nikon is no longer in the LF lens market, so the supply is drying up on these guys. Mine requires 22" of bellows at infinity, and two tripods to support it. Needless to say, it hasn't seen a lot of use and is in pristine condition. BTW, that is a beautiful camera. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

Try www.nikonians.com or other photography forums, I'm sure there are people who would buy your lens. Large format cameras and lens prices are still at premium.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris You are still comparing a zoom lense to another zoom lense. I find my 70-200 2.8L lacking compared to my 135L or 85L. Having a Nikon system as well, I know that my 80-200 F2.8 lacks compared to my 85mm 1.4. You said that the 18-200VR isnt better than the Nikon 80-200 so you can imagine what the difference between a 85mm 1.4 and the 18-200 is even bigger. IMHO zooms can get close to primes in terms of sharpness but there are other things like bokeh, colour and bigger apertures. I can imagine that bokeh of 18-200VR @ 200 and its maximum aperture of f5.6 which is its maximum and I bet not very sharp isnt something to crave about.

http://www.nikonians.org - Look through the galleries. You'll find tons of shots taken with the 18-200VR, many of them nothing short of stunning. Besides......If you know you're going to be taking a specific shot, then by all means use the best fixed lens you can muster. But in terms of an all-around use, carry with you lens, it's impossible to beat the 18-200VR.