[The Quality Guru]

I have just ventured into the realm of photgraphy as of yesterday when my aunt gave me her Nikon (AF) N2020 w/ MB-22 flash. My aunt said it was top-of-the-line in its day; is that true and is this a good camera? I also just procured an all-alloy ancient Nikkormat (it's beautiful) of my grandfather's from the 60's or 70's.

The Nikkormat came with three lenses, all of which were the old non-AI, bayonet mount sort. As I've read at this site, http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/bodylens.htm these lenses are incompatible with my N2020 and I'll need a newer-breed AF lens. My aunt recommended that I get the Nikon AF 35-70, but when I realized that these cost about $600 . . . (and I thought audio was expensive). I saw some on e-bay for circa $400 and that's pretty affordable. Hey, I was wondering, are there any "audiogons" of the camera world?

But I know that most of you are into audio more than you are into photography, but knowing that many of you still fancy photography quite a bit, I need to know a few good photography forums where I can obtain information on lenses, etc. And what are some good lens/camera review sites?

Thanks in advance.

 

[recephasan]

Hi there.
The 2002 is an old technology camera but there is no reason whatsoever you cannot take stunning shots with it. It's not in the technology of the camera, once you know what you're doing.

I own an F-100, SB-28 and a bunch of good lenses. However, for everyday fun (OK, not everyday), I use my rangefinder Voigtlander Bessa R with no automatic features whatsoever, other than the lightmeter.

I read this someplace about photography and I've seen it apply to me and a bunch of other people I know:
Beginners focus on their equipment
Intermediates focus on the framing and composition
Experts focus on light

Of course, as Head Hi-Fiers, we know none of this applies to heaphone listening

Now, about your old lenses:
They are inferior to new lenses in optical quality, but may be superior in mechanical build. The reason they're inferior is that in the past 10-15 years, there have been a number of advancements in the lens building and coating technologies.

I'd say, keep the camera body, do not start with a $600 zoom lens (I think it's overkill, you could get other brands for cheaper).

I'd get the $100 Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D lens (I have the non-D, the older version) first. It is an amazing lens, not only for its price range.
Then, I'd see what pictures this lens makes me miss I could have taken with another lens (maybe a 24mm) and build up from there.

What I would advise against (which is what I did) is stocking up with a bunch of lenses to cover all ranges, and ending up not using them 99% of the time. Photography can be a more expensive hobby than headphone listening.

Just my 2cents.

 

[wallijonn]

GG,

look in kenchi's thread. there are plenty of url's given.

as to your dilemma - keep the Nikkormat. what lenses did they come with? usually people prefer 28/50/135/200. i on the other hand like 17mm/105mm only. heck, i would even buy a 500mm before getting a 200mm. if i did venture into the 50mm range, it would have to be a massive piece of glass, like a f0.9/57mm.

the nikkormat lenses were made out of glass. which lenses were available? and where do you live? open the yellow pages, visit a couple of stores, find out who repairs what (!!!) and then go visit the camerasmith for even more info. chances are he has all the rare gems. he may even sell you one. just don't balk at his prices

i'm sure inside chicago there must be some great camera stores. if you're in new york city, check out Wall Street Camera and Olden Camera for some good lens buys. I'm afraid Willoughby's just doesn't cut it - although you may sometimes find a rare gem.