~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Robert Nabors" <nabors7@comcast.net> wrote in message news:5YCdnYRNmN9RIb_YnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > What is the best lens for general use with the Nikon D200. A camera shop > told me that the lens (AF-S NIKKOR 18-70mm will be OK. > > Currently I use the AF-S NIKKOR 18-70mm with a Nikon D70s and it works fine. > But, I would like to purchase a lens for general that best suits a D200. I > don't know if a camera shop can be trusted to correctly suggest something. The 18-70 is a surprisingly good lens (assuming, as always, a good sample). The 17-55 f2.8 is slightly sharper, but at a much higher price. It is also larger and has less zoom range. Why not continue to use the 18-70 until you find a need for something else? Also, if you have older lenses (AI or later), these will work with the D200... -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole812@webtv.net> wrote in message news:1159881994.642663.229430@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > By Linda Harvey: > > Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior > for homosexuals doesn't stop us from continuing to elevate such folks > to positions where they gain access to our kids. > > http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52244 This kind of bigoted junk is what leads ("justifies"...?) that nutty Baptist church group from Kansas to its actions in picketing soldiers' (and the recently killed girls in Pennsylvania) funerals, of all things!!! Somehow in their twisted views, they appear to believe that their hatred for homosexuals justifies this... This is ridiculous and disgusting. BTW - I'm always amused by these hate groups arguing that gay people somehow undermine "family values", yet they fight against gay marriage - and fail to recognize the MANY successful and happy gay families that exist (and, gosh, many even with children! ;-). Marriage rights should be enjoyed by ALL, not just some in our society (Remember when marriage between different races was outlawed? Or, further back, when it was at the whim of the master?). These anti-gay people are soon (I hope) going to be viewed with the same contempt as we now view those trying to limit the marriage rights of Blacks. I also have to laugh at the idea that anyone can be "lured" into being homosexual (or for that matter, lured into being heterosexual...;-) - people are what they are, and should be able to live as what they are and as they wish, so long as that does not (truly...!!!) inflict harm on others. Bigotry be dead!!! -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~ "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:TYCdnR7xOMgdSL7YnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@giganews.com... > David Ruether wrote: >> "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole812@webtv.net> wrote in message news:1159881994.642663.229430@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >>> By Linda Harvey: >>> Meanwhile, we need to wake up. The fact that this is typical behavior >>> for homosexuals doesn't stop us from continuing to elevate such folks >>> to positions where they gain access to our kids. >>> >>> http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52244 >> This kind of bigoted junk is what leads ("justifies"...?) that nutty >> Baptist church group from Kansas to its actions in picketing soldiers' >> (and the recently killed girls in Pennsylvania) funerals, of all things!!! >> Somehow in their twisted views, they appear to believe that their >> hatred for homosexuals justifies this... This is ridiculous and >> disgusting. BTW - I'm always amused by these hate groups >> arguing that gay people somehow undermine "family values", yet >> they fight against gay marriage - and fail to recognize the MANY >> successful and happy gay families that exist (and, gosh, many even >> with children! ;-). Marriage rights should be enjoyed by ALL, not >> just some in our society (Remember when marriage between >> different races was outlawed? Or, further back, when it was at >> the whim of the master?). These anti-gay people are soon (I hope) >> going to be viewed with the same contempt as we now view those >> trying to limit the marriage rights of Blacks. I also have to laugh at >> the idea that anyone can be "lured" into being homosexual (or for >> that matter, lured into being heterosexual...;-) - people are what >> they are, and should be able to live as what they are and as they >> wish, so long as that does not (truly...!!!) inflict harm on others. >> Bigotry be dead!!! >> -- >> David Ruether > I hate to break this to you, but homosexuals DON'T have children. > Bisexuals do, but the true homosexual can't have sexual intercourse with > a person of the opposite sex. > Bisexuals can, and do, but they aren't the subject of the discussion. > Lumping bisexuals and homosexuals into the same group is as misguided as > lumping homosexuals and heterosexuals into the same group. Gosh, "I hate to break it to you", but heterosexual couples don't necessarily have children, homosexual couples include women (one of the prejudices often encountered is that homosexuals are only male...;-) who *can* have children (with the aid of a male friend or sperm bank), and gay couples of both sexes can and do adopt children (who generally turn out to be heterosexual - big surprise, since homosexuality is not "catching"..!.;-). -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~ "Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:4cmdndBBRaJieb7YnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote >> In case you don't know, prison rapes are predominantly committed by >> heterosexuals, either to "get off" with someone when the only >> available "someones" are of the same gender or to assert dominance >> over another inmate. They think that if you rape another inmate, you >> own him. Don't ask me why. This is a prison culture thing outside my >> personal experience. > Politically correct bullshit. > They're homosexuals- that's the basic definition of homosexual; having sex > with men. You may want to consider them 'bisexual', but the bottom line (as > it were) is that they're interested in men- > same thing in women's prisons- > > Chas Hmmm... Let's see... By this logic, (almost?) all male prisoners are homosexual while in prison, regardless of their likely VERY un-homosexual preferences (for most) while out of prison? Likewise for women... You mistake homosexual acts forced by the situation (or present among young people experimenting sexually) with homosexuality - but the two are quite different! The OP has it right. -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~ "Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:NaadnW9Y1uNvcb7YnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com... > "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote >> This kind of bigoted junk is what leads ("justifies"...?) that nutty >> Baptist church group from Kansas to its actions in picketing soldiers' >> (and the recently killed girls in Pennsylvania) funerals, of all things!!! > Little different from the anti-war protesters being rude, or the various > anti-christian groups going on about the pederasts in the Catholic Church. > You get the same sort of invective from gays in demonstration/parade, and > from pro/anti immigration issue partisans. What a bunch of nonsense! Anti-war protesters may be rude sometimes (I'm glad they are - we must not be sheep led by our leaders into bad wars with no protest!). And you don't see any more than comment about the pederasty in the Catholic Church - not a denouncement of that Church as a whole (though it has done some mighty nasty things in its history, coming from the top down and not just the bottom up as with the current problems). People do want to speak out, often loudly (gee, surprise, if they feel they are not otherwise being heard). This is different from disrupting *funerals* for our ***SOLDIERS*** who have died in service to our country - who should be honored (*regardless* of what we may think of the war!). And, now we have innocent children shot by a nut who apparently couldn't deal with his sexual demons - and the nuts from Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas threaten to come and upset these very peaceful and passive Amish during their funerals, adding to the distress of their losses... Come on - this almost defines evil!!! >> Somehow in their twisted views, they appear to believe that their >> hatred for homosexuals justifies this... > It's much the same as with 'gay marriage' proponents that distance > themselves, sometimes quite contemptuously, from plural marriage advocates; > or consanguinity by measures we don't recognize; or age-of-consent rules, so > on. I don't...;-) One must really examine what is "known" for both logic and the real truth before coming to conclusions about these. Otherwise, it is just more prejudices... > Everybody's got some 'twisted views', and everybody is subject to get rude > about it. OK, if it has some truthful examination of the facts and logic, and not just bigotry and prejudice, behind it (NOT propaganda, like the OP's sited URL). >>......Marriage rights should be enjoyed by ALL, not >> just some in our society (Remember when marriage between >> different races was outlawed? Or, further back, when it was at >> the whim of the master?). > Or when it was between a man and numerous women? or between a 6 yr. old and > the prophet of islam? or a woman and numerous men from the same family? > If you want religious approbation, you need to switch religions until you > find one you like. > If you want approbation from all religions, you're out of luck. Marriage in the US is a state recognition of a union. It may be additionally religiously sanctioned (or not - it makes no difference legally...). It is not right to deny a state right to some that is granted to others (and this recognition of unions does carry with it legal and financial liabilities/advantages, making it not inconsequential). > If you want Government Approval for your domestic relationship, you've got > some company to bring with you. ??? Or, if I get what you mean, "one considered step at a time...";-) (Though there may not necessarily be additional included groups, at least for quite a while. When I was a kid I heard nothing at all about gay people except my cousin relating how he helped beat one up one night. 50 years later, there is STILL a lot of prejudices, but gay marriage actually exists in limited areas in the US (and in more in the rest of the world [tells yuh sumpin', don' it?;-]). >> These anti-gay people are soon (I hope) >> going to be viewed with the same contempt as we now view those >> trying to limit the marriage rights of Blacks. > There were lots of places where such marriages were approved; others where not. > In much of Asia, the denigrated race was 'white'- asian women who married > whites were despised, their children of mixed-race treated very shabbily. > In other words; the condition of 'racialism' is not confined to some > degenerate group of Americans. Of course - but we are talking about the US, and the rights of adults... (Um, I do very much take exception to your referring to gays as degenerates, if that is what you did - that would have been VERY bigoted...!). >> I also have to laugh at >> the idea that anyone can be "lured" into being homosexual (or for >> that matter, lured into being heterosexual...;-) > Lots of youngsters are seduced by chickenhawks- many, to their lasting shame > and self-degradation. Many go on to predate on younger children; often with > attendent violence. The shame (and subsequent psychological problems) can be attributed more to the guilt and shame (and feelings of need to hide) put on them by our social-sexual pressures (and the "nuclear family", which is very unrealistic). If you look at history where man-boy relationships were prized (as in Rome), generally no harm came from the relationships, the older person often served as a mentor, and the younger proceeded later to be in a heterosexual relationship. BTW, many of the Europeans consider us (properly) to be up-tight prigs about sexuality, which does us more harm than good in the end. >> - people are what >> they are, and should be able to live as what they are and as they >> wish, so long as that does not (truly...!!!) inflict harm on others. > The dispute is in what constitutes 'harm'. If I hit you and cause you physical injury or death, that is "harm"; if a male married same-sex couple walks down the street by you in Massachusetts holding hands, that causes you no harm (except what you generate internally from your bigotry...). That distinction is simple. >> Bigotry be dead!!! > Judgment be damned??? Yes, if it is based on erroneous or ill-considered "facts". > Chas -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~ "Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:YcednR3p_uBDjbnYnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote >> By this logic, (almost?) all male prisoners are homosexual while in >> prison, regardless of their likely VERY un-homosexual preferences >> (for most) while out of prison? > No- only certain men act out their homosexuality by raping other inmates; > homosexuals. I would change that then to *some* men (and women) perform homosexual acts for various reasons in prison, but relatively few of those who do are homosexuals... >> Likewise for women... You mistake >> homosexual acts forced by the situation (or present among young >> people experimenting sexually) with homosexuality - but the two are >> quite different! The OP has it right. > You have some odd definition of 'homosexual', if it excludes homosexual acts > of various sorts. > > Chas You confuse the two - for instance, someone may perform one or several homosexual acts in his/her life, yet not be homosexual. Actually, this is the norm (read Kinsey... ;-) Or, one may be bisexual, or homosexual - but who cares. Live and let live - the labels are silly impediments. -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole812@webtv.net> wrote in message news:1159881994.642663.229430@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [...] More stupid, bigoted, thoughtless anti-gay propaganda passed on by "bob and carole"... -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole1010@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1162583168.198027.253360@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> >>> > Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual >> >>> > men, he likes young teen boys. We should pray for him that he gets a >> >>> > handle on this problem and refrains from harming any more kids. [...] "Bobandcarole" has/have been plastering MANY NGs with this hate posting for some time - and they and their few supporters appear to be incapable of logical and informed follow-up discussions concerning homosexuality (bigotry is by definition illogical and blind...). Their preoccupation with the subject is interesting, though, as "D.P." has pointed out. It makes one wonder what personal problems "B&C" are trying to cover up with these posts. Gosh, now I wonder if "Bob" and "Carole" are actually one person!!! If so, it really is OK...! 8^) --DR ~~~~~~~~~~~ "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole1010@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1162589055.410556.238750@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > tersono wrote: >> On 3 Nov 2006 06:07:20 -0800, "bob&carole" >> <bobandcarole100@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. [...] >> Could you explain briefly why you think the readers of cam.misc, >> uk.d-i-y, alt.support.sleep-disorder and alt.education give a wet fart >> about what protrusion or orifice in what item or organism some >> politician uses for his sexual gratification? ["bobandcarole" has posted the same bigoted post earlier in MANY other NGs...] > Just because you are clueless doesn't mean the rest are......... Ah, in the spirit of what was suggested by "helco" (I think it is a good idea! ;-), here is the following -- - freeze three thinly sliced bananas placed in a bowl. - place the frozen banana slices in a blender with just enough milk to permit the blade to begin to spin. - add just enough milk for a thick result while blending enough further to completely liquefy the bananas. - add chocolate sauce or powdered chocolate mix to taste (other flavorings can be used). Serves two, and tastes like the richest ice cream milk shake you have ever had! ;-) --DR ["helco" - "I've seen it suggested that people like B&C be treated as trolls, except that instead of the instruction "Don't feed the troll" (i.e., don't respond) the group should go ahead and feed them by sending recipes instead of pertinent responses. The trolls get bored, and everyone else ends up with a bunch of good recipes."] ~~~~~~~~~ Hi-- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "helco" <helco@insightbb.com> > To: "David Ruether" <druether@no-junk.twcny.rr.com> > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 9:19 PM > Subject: Re: Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal >> Newsgroups: >> alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.education,cam.misc,alt.support.sleep-disorder,uk.d-i-y >> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 3:45 PM >> Subject: Re: Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandal >>> "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole1010@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1162589055.410556.238750@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>>> tersono wrote: >>>>> On 3 Nov 2006 06:07:20 -0800, "bob&carole" >>>>> <bobandcarole100@hotmail.com> wrote: > Ah, in the spirit of what was suggested by "helco" (I think it >> is a good idea! ;-), here is the following -- >> - freeze three thinly sliced bananas placed in a bowl. >> - place the frozen banana slices in a blender with just >> enough milk to permit the blade to begin to spin. >> - add just enough milk for a thick result while blending >> enough further to completely liquify the bananas. >> - add chocolate sauce or powdered chocolate mix to >> taste (other flavorings can be used). >> Serves two, and tastes like the richest ice cream milk >> shake you have ever had! ;-) >> >> --DR > David -- I'm responding off-group because I'm a coward and don't want Hal > being nasty to me -- but thanks for joining in what I thought would be fun. > I like your recipe and have copied it into my recipe file. I was getting > ready to send one of my own -- "Stuffing Those Turkeys" (turkeys? what > turkeys?) -- when Hal's letter > showed up. Maybe all NG's should have a recipe break from time to time -- > sort of like a block party. Yes, when those icky spam posts appear (they have nearly killed alt.support.tourettes - maybe I should try the banana milkshake there...;-) > Also, thanks for giving such a measured response to B&C's hatefulness. I engaged (with others) in extended attempts at logical responses to "B&C" and their few supporters on some other NGs, but without success in moving them toward more open views. I saw no reason to repeat this on the new NGs they have hit, and your method seemed like a good approach...;-) > helco ("the fearless") > > p.s. Frozen whole bananas are very easily sliced. Thanks! Easier than trying to peal apart some of the stuck-together frozen slices...;-) -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "frederick" <lost@sea.com> wrote in message news:1159917985.386581@ftpsrv1... > Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: >> David Ruether wrote: >>>> Thanks, I've been searching for that page. I've seen it long ago >>>> and was going by memory. Seems like it's the Sigma that's the 1st >>>> place holder with Tokina 2nd and Nikon 3rd. Still from a price >>>> point and image quality, Nikon lost with its 12-24. >>> I did not try the Tokina, but I did compare the Sigma full-frame >>> 12-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm, and Nikkor 12-24mm at their widest FLs in the >>> corners (not edges). The Sigma 10-20, though wider, was almost as >>> good in the corners as the Nikkor, with the others noticeably >>> inferior. I did not like ANY of the lenses, though, since none was >>> really sharp and clean in the corners at *any* stop (a requirement >>> for me to consider a lens acceptable, particularly if expensive, as >>> all of these are). At $1000, the Nikkor is very overpriced for its >>> performance level, but $500 is more than I would like to pay for the >>> Sigma, given its severe corner illumination roll-off and very >>> noticeable chromatic problems... >> Exactly! This is the way I see the Nikon 12-24 as well. A lot of people >> like the build quality and images of the Tokina the best out of all of >> them. >> I don't know when this test was done, but maybe Tokina improved their >> lenses? Maybe Nikon did as well? It still looks like the Nikon 12-24 is >> the one to not get, though. > I'm not so sure about that - although I agree that the price for the > nikkor seems high. > I never had the luxury of an ultra-wide 15mm or 18mm lens for 35mm, but > the wide prime lenses ~20 or 24mm I used were less than stellar at the > edge, and they were always very expensive. (The first wide angle lens I > bought was a very humble and average performing AI-s 28mm f2.8 - and > back in the early 1980s even that lens cost me a fortune) How much > better would the 17-35 be on a full-frame sensor? I can't afford the > lens - and doubt that I could afford the camera if it was made. For now > you can buy a D80 and a Nikkor 12-24 for the price of just the 17-35. I have the Nikkor 15mm f5.6 (good and very even, though not exceptional performance to the corners by f11 FF) and have tried the 15mm f3.5 Nikkor (excellent to the edges FF, but with poor corners). The MF 18mm f3.5 (with color...) is excellent FF (I have not tried the AF version). The later MF and the AF 24mm f2.8 are really excellent to the corners by f5.6 FF. The 20mm f2.8 Nikkor is excellent to the corners by f5.6+ FF, but I did not like the performance of earlier Nikkor 20mm lenses. The 28mm f2.8 you had was more likely the AI version, quite inferior to the AIS. The 17-35 is a VERY remarkable lens (see comparison on my web page with other Nikkors at different stops, at - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wa-zooms.htm). For evaluations of many other Nikkors go to - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html. -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Peter" <peter@greatnowhere.com> wrote in message news:4524bd47$0$1353$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com... >>> There is one thing that bothers me slightly... the lens gets glowing >>> reviews all over the place yet sample pictures I saw (from the >>> specific lens we're looking to buy) show noticeable vignetting. I know >>> this is to be expected with long focal lengths but none of reviews >>> mention it. Is this a lemon, or vignetting is fact of life when >>> dealing with >300mm? >> I assume you mean light fall-off? Yes, the lens does have some >> light fall-off wide open, but no more so than most lenses. >> The following two links show images done mostly with the >> 500 f/4 L IS lens. You can look at them and look for light >> fall-off issues. >> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear >> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird > Yes, I meant light fall-off. It's really slight in your photos, but this > sample FF shot shows more of it: > > [URL no longer works] This is an unacceptable level of fall-off - but the clarkvision photos don't show this level of fall-off (though the bears especially sometimes appear overly "burned in" around their edges - and maybe the same around a few of the birds). The last one above looks like a mis-timed focal-plane shutter effect (but that is not possible since it is in the wrong direction). What about a too-long and/or crooked lens shade? -- David Ruether ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "MKL" <no@spam.pl> wrote in message news:eg6epb$9sq$1@inews.gazeta.pl... > I have a problem. I bought circular polarizing filter (manufacturer SELCO, > 10$), but camera was unable to get sharp image neither on AutoFocus nor on > ManualFocus. I guess poor quality of the filter was the reason... I want to > buy Hoya Standard polarizing filter. Is it good choice? Does any one has > expiriences with polarizing filters and FZ-30? > > And one more question. What You think about skylight filter (1B) Hoya Super > HMC? Is it worth to buy it? > > -- > MKL You should probably buy a "circular" polarizer to avoid some possible problems, and Hoya is a good brand for filters. For simple lens protection, a UV (Hoya) single-coated filter is fine (the and skylight offers no advantage, contrary to what the filter ads would try to have you believe...;-). -- David Ruether ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Giovanni Azua" <bravegag@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4q185kFkq18hU1@individual.net... > As stated in the review on http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/ > the single downgrade comparing D80 vs D70 & D70s is the slower > maximum shutter speed ... isn't it a downgrade to worry about? what > sort of situations one will not be able to creatively shoot with the new D80 > that you could do using the D70(s)? i.e. anything fast enough as to require > 1/8000 shutter speed? e.g. photograph a bullet perhaps? :)) The higher shutter speed of the D70 has an advantage for the top available flash synch speed (1/500th for the D70, 1/200th for the D80 as I recall...). Shooting with flash fill in daylight becomes MUCH easier with the higher synch. speed. As others have pointed out, though, 1/4000th is fine for just about anything available-light... -- David Ruether ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Philip Homburg" <philip@ue.aioy.eu> wrote in message news:9bpvgc764qrqkjsnksv6fj9l32@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net... > In article <1161449708.127608.39090@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > tomm42 <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote: >>The best copy of the >>70-210s is the f4. Solid metal build not bad sharpness wise. On par >>with if not a little better than the 18-200. > It is just that two reviewers (David Ruether and Bjorn Rorslett) complain > about low constrast and softness. Ummmm, here is what I say about it at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html "good sharpness wide open to the corners though contrast is lower than Nikkor average; works well on TC14A; AF optics are the same, AF focus ring at front is narrow (in common with other early-style AF Nikkor lenses - there is a need in the Nikkor line for a good current affordable AF 70/80-200/210mm constant-aperture f3.5-4 zoom now that this one has been discontinued); constant aperture with zooming" The fact that the 70-210 f4 performs well on the TC14A indicates that this lens is definitely not soft! Images are excellent in B&W wide open, a tad less than Nikon-normal contrasty in color, but I would (and did) rate this lens as good... (and I have a mint MF version FS...;-). Sometimes B. R. and I disagree, but when this happens, it is most often due to using different methods for checking lenses (also, lenses vary by sample, and rereading B. R.'s rating on this lens, it looks to me that his was defective (I have used several, all good...). -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Giovanni Azua" <bravegag@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4q185kFkq18hU1@individual.net... > As stated in the review on http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/ > the single downgrade comparing D80 vs D70 & D70s is the slower > maximum shutter speed ... isn't it a downgrade to worry about? what > sort of situations one will not be able to creatively shoot with the new D80 > that you could do using the D70(s)? i.e. anything fast enough as to require > 1/8000 shutter speed? e.g. photograph a bullet perhaps? :)) The higher shutter speed of the D70 has an advantage for the top available flash synch speed (1/500th for the D70, 1/200th for the D80 as I recall...). Shooting with flash fill in daylight becomes MUCH easier with the higher synch. speed. As others have pointed out, though, 1/4000th is fine for just about anything available-light... -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~ "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message news:1161545432.344780.174570@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > >David Ruether wrote: >> The higher shutter speed of the D70 has an advantage for >> the top available flash synch speed (1/500th for the D70, >> 1/200th for the D80 as I recall...). Shooting with flash fill >> in daylight becomes MUCH easier with the higher synch. >> speed. > Don't the Nikon flashes have a special 'high speed sync' mode which > lets you sync at ANY shutter speed, with the trade-off of a drop in > power? The Canon flashes have this, you can sync up to 1/8,000th sec, > and I thought Nikon had it too? > > But shooting full power with 1/500th sec sync is better than shooting > 1/200th sec sync (or 1/500th sec with reduced power in special mode), > so this is a point in favor of the D70 I guess ... Yes. If you are at considerable distance (say, shooting a large group photo) for which you may want a medium stop in bright sunshine, you need all the effective power you can get from the fill flash to avoid being forced to use an out of range shutter speed or a smaller stop that eats up even more flash power. Having 1/500th synch., though only 1 1/3rd stop different from 1/200th, can make a usable difference with fill-flash outdoors - and may make aperture-priority (with aperture selected for best lens performance) more practical in changing light levels without running up against the maximum usable shutter synch. speed so often... -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Advocate" <Advo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%560h.118356$aJ.27993@attbi_s21... > "David Ruether" <druether@no-junk.twcny.rr.com> wrote in message > news:o0O_g.65157$uH6.43306@twister.nyroc.rr.com... >> "Advocate" <Advo@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:9t6_g.111579$aJ.25011@attbi_s21... >>> Does anyone have the "sport grip" (I think that may be a Canon term) for >>> a Nikon FA? My used camera came without one. >> You can try 1-800-nikonus, then "parts" - they often have parts >> for older cameras. If it is worth my while (...;-), I could look in >> my collection of odds-and-ends, though I don't think I have one >> for the FA (I think it is one for the FG that I remember...). As >> someone else suggested, KEH (and Cametacamera) is worth >> a try. The grip does make a difference in usability of the FA... >> --DR > I'd like to mention David that I visit your website very frequently and find > it extremely useful. Thanks Thanks for the comments! -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "BingBangBoing" <bingbangboing@storm.ca> wrote in message news:vqydnQYa8_Dl_dvYnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@storm.ca... > I purchased a Nikon D50. It came with a DX 18-55 MM 3.5 5.6 ED lens. > > I wanted a zoom, so I tried a SIGMA lens for a while (forget which one), but > ended up getting a Nikon ED 70-300 1.4 5.6 D zoom. > > On a scale of 1-10, what would you rate my zoom lens at? I just wanted a > general purpose zoom for outdoor use. I understand there are other Nikon > lens lines other than "ED". What are they? Where does the ED line stand? > In the middle? > > I won't ask for a 1-10 rating on the D50 because I'm sure that will start a > huge debate. This lens is rated at my www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html, along with MANY others. I down-graded it compared with the earlier 75-300mm due to its unexceptional edge performance when used full-frame (all of the lens ratings are full-frame, on film) - but used on the smaller digital frame, it should perform quite well at any but the smallest stops (due to diffraction). Others described the meaning of "ED" - but it refers to the use of low-dispersion glass, used to reduce chromatic focus errors. -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Kamal R. Prasad" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote in message news:1162450657.080210.154530@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > does anyone have a review/experience with this lens? > Why is it so expensive and how does this or the other lens 85 mm f/1.4 > compare with a nikkor 85 mm f/1.4? I have an N 75 body. Which fixed > lenses are best for low-light shots? I prefer to zoom with my feet than > pay for it to the lens manufacturer. Get the Nikkor 50mm f1.8AF (or the f1.4, if you must - but that seems like overkill for an N75...) or the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 - both are superb lenses. Don't bother paying the extra for a not very useful 2/3rds extra stop, especially when the 1.8s perform so well wide open. The Zeiss lenses will likely offer no optical advantages, and will not meter properly (or AF) on the N75, so these would be a waste of money. BTW, you may find this interesting: http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html - there are some other fine fixed FL lenses in my list... -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Kamal R. Prasad" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote in message news:1162531135.513211.110640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > David Ruether wrote: >> "Kamal R. Prasad" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote in message news:1162450657.080210.154530@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > does anyone have a review/experience with this lens? [50mm f1.8 Zeiss] >> > Why is it so expensive and how does this or the other lens 85 mm f/1.4 >> > compare with a nikkor 85 mm f/1.4? I have an N 75 body. Which fixed >> > lenses are best for low-light shots? I prefer to zoom with my feet than >> > pay for it to the lens manufacturer. >> Get the Nikkor 50mm f1.8AF (or the f1.4, if you must - but that seems like >> overkill for an N75...) or the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 - both are superb lenses. > you mean the N75 cannot handle a f/1.4 lens? No, it will work fine - but the price is far higher, the N75 is a cheap body, and optically there is no advantage to the f1.4... >> Don't bother paying the extra for a not very useful 2/3rds extra stop, especially >> when the 1.8s perform so well wide open. The Zeiss lenses will likely offer no > The problem is that of wanting to take low-light shots -without > arranging for a huge set of lighting arrangements. As I said, 2/3rds of a stop isn't worth a lot, especially if it results in reduced performance, as it does here... > I have a 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 but it just doesn't live up to my > expectations. Especially true if it is the VR version - I didn't like the three samples I tried for full frame coverage, though it may be OK for the smaller digital sensor size. BTW, the older non-VR, with a good sample, could be quite good stopped down slightly. For low available light, nothing serves as well as high-quality fast (which means non-zoom) lenses. >> optical advantages, and will not meter properly (or AF) on the N75, so these >> would be a waste of money. BTW, you may find this interesting: > I wonder why they cost so much if their performance isn't so many times > better than a cheaper lens. Marketing, marketing, marketing... (this has worked for several overpriced-for-performance/competition instances in the past, too). >> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html - there are some other fine fixed >> FL lenses in my list... > yeah -I saw your website. Its more oriented towards manual focus. BTW > -the N 75 comes with a manual mode, or is that grossly insufficient > compared to the F series? The older camera bodies have far superior viewfinders for manual focus, and displays that are far easier to see in bright light for manual exposures. And the newer cheaper AF Nikon bodies will not meter with manual focus lenses in any mode at all (Ah, come on Nikon, this was STUPID!!! [Though it was intended to sell a bunch of new AF lenses - but in the past Nikon gained user loyalty by not outmoding older gear with model changes as some other brands did...]). > thanks > -kamal -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~ "Kamal R. Prasad" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote in message news:1162622753.579655.10530@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > David Ruether wrote: >> "Kamal R. Prasad" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote in message news:1162531135.513211.110640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > David Ruether wrote: >> >> "Kamal R. Prasad" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote in message news:1162450657.080210.154530@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [...] >> > you mean the N75 cannot handle a f/1.4 lens? >> No, it will work fine - but the price is far higher, the N75 is a cheap >> body, and optically there is no advantage to the f1.4... > ok. Yeah the 50 f/1.8 is priced really cheap. Have you looked at the 35 > mm f/2 lens? Uh, yes... Again, look at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html The 35mm f2 AF Nikkor is quite good... [...] >> As I said, 2/3rds of a stop isn't worth a lot, especially if it results >> in reduced performance, as it does here... > I didn't understand why the N 75 will come in the way of performance. > Even if the body is cheap -this hardly makes for a challenging > situation. It is the lens - wide aperture performance is almost always inferior to mid-stop performance. The N75 does have some practical use problems, though, for manual focus and exposure photography (poor finder sharpness and poor visibility of the display in bright light - older Nikons were SO much better in these respects!). >> > I have a 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 but it just doesn't live up to my >> > expectations. >> Especially true if it is the VR version - I didn't like the three samples >> I tried for full frame coverage, though it may be OK for the smaller >> digital sensor size. BTW, the older non-VR, with a good sample, >> could be quite good stopped down slightly. For low available >> light, nothing serves as well as high-quality fast (which means >> non-zoom) lenses. > yeah -I have the VR version. I did ruin my shots and morever so since I > wasn't using an external flash. > I don't use a DSLR yet. Im thinking of getting a Leica V-Lux1 though. > At least, I will come to know immediately if the shot was good enough > instead of waiting for the reel to be developed. [...] With film, shooting with a good camera (with a good sharp, large, and bright viewfinder with accurate framing) that has good AF, good metering, and is easy to hand hold, using color negative film processed and printed by a good lab, and using good technique, you do not need the (limited) feedback of the digital camera about the quality of the image... Instead of continually looking at what you've shot, you can just keep shooting with film, repeating those frames that you particularly want right or are unsure of. BTW, there are good digital cameras that have good electronic eyepiece finders (the rear panel ones are not very useful in bright light) that can produce good 8x10 images (I use a Sony 707, with an excellent 38-180mm equivalent f2-2.5 zoom [sharp to the corners at those unusually wide stops], and I have a converter that gives me a sharp 28mm equivalent with it). -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Jeremy Reece" <jreece_dont_you_dare_spam_me@gmail.com> wrote in message news:Jrydnbczl9kZ1dDYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d@bt.com... > Photography is becoming a bit of a perseveration lately :) [...] I used to shoot about 10,000 pictures a year, then none for many years except a few for commercial work, then a digital camera came along and I shot another 10,000 photos. It can be addictive...! ;-) -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "tomm42" <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message news:1162906368.790226.63150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > It is a photography thing, if you are shooting manual, you want to know > 4 clicks is f5.6 on a f2.8 lens. Good photographers can get a light > reading and work from there is the light doesn't change substantially. > This is called knowing your equipment. Now with a variable focal length > the focal lenngth muddies the exposure. So if you are using automatic > the variable fstop doesn't mean squat, if you are working manually it > really helps. Haven't decided yet since fstops are controled by the > front wheel on my camera, makes my life a little difficult and I'm not > as facile as I am with my Leicas (just about 40 years of practice). Many cameras permit using variable f-stop lenses as if they were constant f-stop (it is a custom setting on my Nikons) - so, for instance, an f3.5-4.5 zoom can be used (with constant resultant shutter speed with zooming) as if it were an f4.5 lens. -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Ben Brugman" <Ben@niethier.nl> wrote in message news:dqadnUpUkpPOTc3YRVnyvw@casema.nl... David Ruether wrote... >> Many cameras permit using variable f-stop lenses as if they were >> constant f-stop (it is a custom setting on my Nikons) - so, for >> instance, an f3.5-4.5 zoom can be used (with constant resultant >> shutter speed with zooming) as if it were an f4.5 lens. > Yes Nikon does that, but I do not consider that a feature in all > cercumstances. I often like to use an aperature as large as > possible but one stop down. You lose one stop, but gain a lot > of quality, this is not possible anymore with Nikon. Then you set the Nikon custom control the other way, and using aperture priority and setting f5 on an f3.5-X lens at the short end, the f-stop will slip smaller and the shutter speed slower with zooming longer (assuming you have set the custom controls for 1/3rd stop shift intervals). I prefer to select constant f-stop, though, since most zooms perform better at their wider stops toward the long end, with more stopping down required at the shorter end for good performance. Also, it is useful to not have the shutter speed slowing and becoming more difficult to hand hold as the lens is zoomed longer (which is harder to hand hold in any case). > Offcourse there is an upside as well, taking flash pictures with > non TTL flashes it is a huge advantage that the aperature stays > constant over the complete zoomrange. (As Nikon does with > all aperatures except the 'largest' and probably the smallest). > > Ben Yes - it can make us realize again how useful "Auto" flash mode can be now that some of our fancy TTL flashes no longer work in TTL mode with our fancy new digital SLR bodies...;-( -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "ben brugman" <ben@niethier.nl> wrote in message news:45536076$0$580$4d4ebb8e@read.news.nl.uu.net... >> Then you set the Nikon custom control the other way, and using >> aperture priority and setting f5 on an f3.5-X lens at the short >> end, the f-stop will slip smaller and the shutter speed slower with >> zooming longer (assuming you have set the custom controls [...] > I am not aware of a Nikon custom control on the D70 to do this. I have not looked through the custom controls of the D70, but I would be surprised if an option is not there to either let the f-stop of a variable f-stop zoom shift with zooming (the default, which would do what you want), or hold it constant with zooming... -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com [apparently the D70 does not have this feature…] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Jan Nademlejnsky" <jannade@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:qr96h.305462$1T2.144652@pd7urf2no... > Does anybody know how this spherical photography is done and what kind of > equipment do you need to do it? From those amazing pictures I could say that > it cannot be done by stitching, because there are moving objects in the > pictures which would be impossible to stitch together. It looks to me like > the picture is taken as a one shot through spherical mirror (one-way) or > something like this. > http://www.sphericalphoto.com/flash.html > > I would appreciate any links to learn more. > Thanks > Jan This looks like the result of a camera using two Nikkor 6.2mm f5.6 lenses on cameras mounted back to back - the final image is derived in software (as I recall...) -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message news:UWZ9h.3167$%_2.2982@newsfe19.lga... > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> > wrote in message news:OAZ9h.6705$k74.5923@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk... >> Ed Mullikin wrote: >>> A point of confusion: For example, what does zoom 6.7X mean? Is that >>> the multiplier if one uses the smallest to the largest image a camera >>> can record? What is the reference? A friend of mine asked me and >>> I'm not certain that I told her correctly. >> It's usually the ratio of the maximum focal length to the minimum. So a >> 25 - 100mm zoom lens might be described as a 4:1 zoom. The area covered >> would have a 16:1 ratio. This is /not/ the same as the "magnification" of >> binoculars. >> David > That makes sense. My Sony DSC-F828 then can optically zoom 7.1 (from 28 to > 200mm). According to the instruction book I can also get into "Digital Zoom" > and "Precision Digital Zoom" which serves to confuse me and I've not really > needed to use it. Thank you. "Digital zoom" involves increasing the appearance of magnification by cropping the image area used of the sensor. As you might expect, this reduction of the sensor area used reduces the pixel count and therefore results in an image that is less sharp and more "pixelated". Most choose not to use digital zoom once the results are seen (except possibly in moderation, for small prints). -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1164507048.034183.179900@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > Has anyone ever run across any lens (outside of very long ones, > exceeding f10 focal ratios) that performs best wide open? In other > words, the residual aberrations don't decrease noticeably upon stopping > the lens down. > If so, what lens, and what camera was it used with? Some micro lenses and special-use lenses (like the Nikkor 55mm f1.2 for oscilloscopes) perform best (or nearly so) wide open (though these cannot be directly mounted to cameras without adapters and extensions). Teles are often fine wide-open (the 85mm f1.8AF, 135mm f2MF, and 180mm f2.8AF Nikkors are really excellent wide open, as are most of the longer, fast Nikkors. The 16mm f3.5 Nikkor fisheye is a great lens, nearly at its best wide open (amazing for a super-wide!). Many other Nikkors are excellent nearly wide open (most of these are non-zooms, though...). You may find my Nikkor list interesting, at -- http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "duusu" <deuceus@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1164624438.978844.152430@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > I have a question about something I recently learned about -- I don't > know how long it's been around. > > To refresh your memory, or if you don't know about it, check this > out... > > [link no longer works] > > Until now, all this seems true. I don't know if I'm allowed to > disbelieve it, but it seems like it didn't create much contraversy. > > There is something that I keep myself with no answer, making me > disbelieve it: > In the page I linked above, the last picture you'll see the manequin > wearing sunglasses. Now, according to Kaya, you can "see-through". > Now I can see her eyes through the sunglassess, but why can't I see > through her flesh? Where are her bones and inner organs? I thought > this is see-through. When does the lens know where to stop? > > Also, another picture showed a big ink stain on a piece of paper. With > the magic lens you can see through the ink and can actually read the > word underneath, but I ask myself "why can I see through the ink but > not through to read the next page?" > > Someone explain this brainkiller please. Or lie to me and say this is > a scam. But they have videos of people in a swimming pool and you can > see through.... things. Why can't I see the guy behind her? > > Thanks, everyone. This nonsense actually led Sony to remove a valuable feature from some of their early Mini-DV cameras in the priggish belief that people could use the "X-Ray" feature to see through clothes. As a result, we can no longer shoot the beautiful daylight IR in video that had been possible (see http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/ir.htm for some sample frame-grabs from the early Sony TRV-9). With many camcorders the IR blocking filter can be switched out for "night vision" (using IR light sources), but current Sonys force overexposure in daylight. Even with IR functionality not disabled and a good IR-pass filter in place, the "X-Ray" effect will only work a bit with some open-weave materials - hardly worth bothering with (if you have ulterior motives...;-). In other words, forget it. -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message news:456ab0c4$0$2917$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > I received my 350D back which was being converted to IR only shooting by > LDP. My first shots with it are up at: > < http://experimentaldigitalphotography.com/2006/11/27/first-light-with-my-350d-converted-to-ir-only/ > > or > < http://tinyurl.com/yec2sf > Interesting images (I am curious why you chose such wide stops with high shutter speeds, though...). BTW, Sony removed a valuable feature from their later Mini-DV cameras that offered "night shot" in the priggish belief that people could use it as an "X-Ray" feature to see through clothes. As a result, we can no longer shoot the beautiful daylight IR in video that had been possible (see http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/ir.htm for some sample frame-grabs from the early Sony TRV-9). With many camcorders the IR blocking filter can still be switched out for IR "night vision" (using IR light sources), but current Sony camcorders unfortunately force overexposure in daylight. -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~ "Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message news:mmnpm21f0k3qpqtjddftid8kt7p9cvg8j5@4ax.com... > On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:50:13 GMT, "David Ruether" > <druether@no-junk.twcny.rr.com> wrote: >>"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message news:456ab0c4$0$2917$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... >>> I received my 350D back which was being converted to IR only shooting by LDP. My first shots with it are up at: >>> < http://experimentaldigitalphotography.com/2006/11/27/first-light-with-my-350d-converted-to-ir-only/ > >>> or >>> < http://tinyurl.com/yec2sf > >>Interesting images (I am curious why you chose such wide >>stops with high shutter speeds, though...). BTW, Sony >>removed a valuable feature from their later Mini-DV >>cameras that offered "night shot" in the priggish belief >>that people could use it as an "X-Ray" feature to see >>through clothes. > Not that people "could", but "did". Then they posted images & videos > on the internet. The ones I saw were pretty much "set up", I thought. Some very particular conditions must be met for it to work at all. Maybe the cloth in US clothes just isn't right...;-) It is always easy to set up "examples" to prove an effect, if it is possible at all, but in random practice, it is a different matter (and, yes, out of curiosity, I did try out the camcorder on city streets in the summer and at the beach - and there were no results that should have upset Sony...! ;-) >>As a result, we can no longer shoot the >>beautiful daylight IR in video that had been possible (see >>http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/ir.htm for some sample >>frame-grabs from the early Sony TRV-9). With many >>camcorders the IR blocking filter can still be switched >>out for IR "night vision" (using IR light sources), but >>current Sony camcorders unfortunately force >>overexposure in daylight. > -- > Bill Funk The good news is that with the Sony camcorders, a good technician can defeat the silly IR daylight-overexposure "feature", again permitting the shooting of wonderful video in IR (which I much prefer to IR stills). -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Fred McKenzie" <fmmck@aol.com> wrote in message news:fmmck-6E3409.15384230112006@nntp.aioe.org... > In article <FHEbh.31609$zB4.14832@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, > "David Ruether" <druether@no-junk.twcny.rr.com> wrote: >> The ones I saw were pretty much "set up", I thought. Some >> very particular conditions must be met for it to work at all. >> Maybe the cloth in US clothes just isn't right...;-) It is always >> easy to set up "examples" to prove an effect, if it is possible at >> all, but in random practice, it is a different matter (and, yes, out >> of curiosity, I did try out the camcorder on city streets in the >> summer and at the beach - and there were no results that >> should have upset Sony...! ;-) > > David R > Where I worked a few years ago, there was a research project trying to > provide images of objects obscured by smoke and steam. Obviously IR was > a bad choice for the steam. > > Although the project was never completed, they found a couple of > companies that claimed to have products capable of at least seeing > through clothing. These products were intended for use by airport > security screeners. > > The reason your examples had to be "set up", was that they were using > too short of a wavelength. If you go to longer wavelengths, you reach a > point where it is no longer considered light, but microwave energy. > Microwave imaging techniques can be used instead of photographic > techniques. These millimeter microwaves are generated by objects, just > as infra red energy is generated by objects with temperatures above zero > degrees kelvin. > > Yes, millimeter waves pass through clothing. I recall seeing one image > of a lady who posed (in other words, it was "set up") with weapons > hidden under her clothing. You could definitely see the weapons. > > I just did a web search for "millimeter wave photo" and found several > sites that had example images. They were all images of men with hidden > weapons! > > Fred These are good examples, but nothing Sony had to worry about in terms of the capabilities of its camcorders...;-) -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~ <josh@phred.org> wrote in message news:MPG.1fd96b2bb306ef649896b4@newsgroups.comcast.net... > In article <FHEbh.31609$zB4.14832@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, druether@no- > junk.twcny.rr.com says... >> "Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message news:mmnpm21f0k3qpqtjddftid8kt7p9cvg8j5@4ax.com... > >> > Not that people "could", but "did". Then they posted images & videos >> > on the internet. >> The ones I saw were pretty much "set up", I thought. Some >> very particular conditions must be met for it to work at all. >> Maybe the cloth in US clothes just isn't right...;-) > The type of clothing definitely makes a difference. As does the depth > of the IR filter used. > > I discovered that accidentally with my own Sony NightShot video camera, > an analog model, not digital. I was trying out different filters for > previewing landscapes before shooting them with HIE. At first I thought > the see-through stories were nonsense, because the people who wandered > through my test-videos all seemed to be wearing bright white clothing, > not the least bit opaque. > > But then a group of bicyclists rode through while I was using a very > deep filter (military surplus, a bit deeper than an RM1000), and I > discovered that yes, in fact, with a really deep IR filter, in bright > sun, thin sythetic fabrics are quite transparent. (But the chamois pads > inside cycling shorts are still quite opaque.) > > No, I didn't keep the test videos, I really was trying to preview > landscapes for HIE, not be a voyeur. Ah, good...! ;-) Few people have access to the really strong IR filters required for the "see-through" effect to work very well (with the few cloth types it works with with the Sony camcorders), and as you point out, most clothes have opaque additional layers in the, ah, "areas of possible interest"...;-). So, my original point stands - Sony was being unnecessarily priggish in defeating a really nice feature on their camcorders (one that permitted daylight motion shooting in IR). Some very beautiful footage can be had with daylight B&W IR video (I prefer it to IR stills), and shooting this is now more difficult. -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:ekpqja02u4e@news2.newsguy.com... > On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:27:46 +0000, David Ruether wrote: >> Few people have access to the really strong IR filters required >> for the "see-through" effect to work very well (with the few cloth >> types it works with with the Sony camcorders), and as you point >> out, most clothes have opaque additional layers in the, ah, "areas >> of possible interest"...;-). So, my original point stands - Sony was >> being unnecessarily priggish in defeating a really nice feature on >> their camcorders (one that permitted daylight motion shooting in >> IR). Some very beautiful footage can be had with daylight B&W >> IR video (I prefer it to IR stills), and shooting this is now more >> difficult. > Is Sony being "priggish" or are they responding to market pressure? > "Daddy, don't get one of those awful Sonys, remember what happened at my > fifteenth birthday party?". I think so, judging from the HUGE number of posts at the time the Sony was current requesting information on what filters worked best (and none about how to prevent the IR feature from working [after all, you do need to do particular things on the camcorder to turn it on - and this feature still works in current camcorders in low light...]). I think Sony just saw the exaggerated claims and got scared of the possibilities (I heard at the time that the Japanese were a bit less open to these than others might be...). I suppose there were legal considerations - but since the feature still works in low light, that seems unlikely... -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message news:456d42ea$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > David Ruether wrote: >> Interesting images (I am curious why you chose such wide >> stops with high shutter speeds, though...). > I used a wide aperture on those images because the info sheet that came > back with the camera suggested a wider aperture would produce the > sharpest result because of diffraction effects as the aperture got smaller. > > To test this I went out and shot with a Canon 50mm f1.8 and a Canon > 100mm f2.8 macro at the full range of apertures to determine with > apertures gave the sharpest results: > < http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=790 > > > Cheers, > > Wayne Interesting test, but it appears to me from your web site images that in the center of the 50mm (very likely an excellent lens), the sharpest frames are at f5.6 and f8, with f4 being close (and the corners are likely to be a bit behind, maybe peaking at f5.6, f8, and f11?). The 105M is also likely to be an excellent lens (meaning, more likely to perform well at wide stops). It appears to be best at f5.6, f8, and f11 on your web site, with good performance also at f16. I would expect more even center-to-corner performance with this longer lens, but this is not necessarily true. I think your instruction sheet is wrong, as indicated by both my experience with checking MANY lenses, and by the images on your excellent web page. For small sensor/lens cameras, what the instruction sheet said is more likely to be true (see my diffraction comparisons with a Mini-DV camcorder, at -- www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/diffraction.htm) - but the differences frame-to-frame are not huge. Very few lenses are at their best wide open, and most of the best lenses in the middle and long FL range peak no wider than about f5.6. You may want to use smaller stops than you did for images like those on the web site you posted the URL for - for not only better lens performance, but greater DOF... -- David Ruether ~~~~~~~~~~~~ "David Ruether" <druether@no-junk.twcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:lgEbh.31602$zB4.13570@twister.nyroc.rr.com... > "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message news:456d42ea$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... >> David Ruether wrote: >>> Interesting images (I am curious why you chose such wide >>> stops with high shutter speeds, though...). >> I used a wide aperture on those images because the info sheet that came back with the camera suggested a wider aperture would >> produce the sharpest result because of diffraction effects as the aperture got smaller. >> >> To test this I went out and shot with a Canon 50mm f1.8 and a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro at the full range of apertures to determine >> with apertures gave the sharpest results: >> < http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=790 > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Wayne > Interesting test, but it appears to me from your web site images that > in the center of the 50mm (very likely an excellent lens), the sharpest > frames are at f5.6 and f8, with f4 being close (and the corners are > likely to be a bit behind, maybe peaking at f5.6, f8, and f11?). The > 105M is also likely to be an excellent lens (meaning, more likely to > perform well at wide stops). It appears to be best at f5.6, f8, and f11 > on your web site, with good performance also at f16. I would expect > more even center-to-corner performance with this longer lens, but > this is not necessarily true. I think your instruction sheet is wrong, as > indicated by both my experience with checking MANY lenses, and > by the images on your excellent web page. For small sensor/lens > cameras, what the instruction sheet said is more likely to be true > (see my diffraction comparisons with a Mini-DV camcorder, at -- > www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/diffraction.htm) - but the differences > frame-to-frame are not huge. Very few lenses are at their best wide > open, and most of the best lenses in the middle and long FL range > peak no wider than about f5.6. You may want to use smaller stops > than you did for images like those on the web site you posted the > URL for - for not only better lens performance, but greater DOF... > -- > David Ruether Ah, it helps to read the text on a web site and not just "look at the pictures"...;-) I would then have noticed that you had already noted (using likely a sharper monitor than I...) what I pointed out above... Carry on...! ;-) -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message news:456f3830$0$16552$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > LOLOL Thanks David. > > Now I have tested these lenses I now have a good idea which apertures to > use. Next is testing my zooms. Uh-oh! Except for a VERY few really distinguished exceptions, be prepared for some shocks, particularly near the edges and corners of the images of the zooms compared with non-zooms! ;-( > Again it illustrates the importance of testing your own lenses. Because > of manufacturing tolerances it is possible for others to get different > results with the same model lens. YES!!! I know even pros who blithely buy expensive lenses and go out on jobs without checking them, only to find later that they are very defective. I have pointed out manufacturing variations even in the Nikon line, and in my lens evaluations I give the number of samples tried for each lens, the range of performance, if a particular lens has unusual variability, and note exceptionally bad performance defects (at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html). BTW, I generally recommend distant test targets (more like what you used - though I use a distant cityscape run diagonally corner to corner, then reversed, then a vertical frame with the horizon line at the top, then the same with the camera inverted, all at a couple of relevant stops, but all with everything locked down in manual). > MaxMax.com also recommends that people > do their own testing to determine the sweet spots. But I'll continue to > publish my testing as I hope it may guide some > Cheers, > Wayne I've had over 88,000 visits since the counter unfortunately got reset in late June of 2005 - and it has been up since 1996, so I guess some people have found it useful...;-) -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Charles" <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message news:12qbn2llrq95mkivnhau62p4ago4dabpa3@4ax.com... > On 5 Dec 2006 08:51:50 -0800, "bluezfolk" <ericreh@yahoo.com> wrote: >> I have a Canon A95 that I'm quite happy with. For those >>unfamiliar with it, the lens has a 3X zoom (35mm equiv 38-114) which is >>fine most of the time. For the few times that I would use a longer >>tele, it isn't worth buying a new camera. Has anyone used auxillary >>tele and wide lenses on their digicams? I know that in the film days >>they weren't very good, but from what I've seen on some websites the >>results look pretty good. Suggestions are welcome. > I've used the ones made by Nikon for my Nikon 990, they are good. I > also tried some I had for a video camera, they are poor. A lot of > cheaper add-on lenses were intended for video cameras where the > optical demands are much less, avoid those. "Charles" comments are good - though I would add that the quality of the final image with the camera lens often depends more on the quality of the *combination* (how well they work together), making arbitrary declarations of "this is good" for the converter nearly impossible (though better/more-expensive ones tend to work better...). Unfortunately, you must try the converters to find good matches, unless you are very lucky. I have shelves full of converters for video and still cameras, and none worked well for a Sony 707 except an Olympus .8X - sharp to the corners at the wide end of the zoom range even at f2(!), but most are soft at the edges and corners on the 707 even stopped down (but often sharp on some video camcorders). -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message news:1166026419.617811.136440@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > Kevin McMurtrie wrote: >> The perspective distortion. I have the Canon 10-22mm lens and it's very >> difficult to use. Aim it at a room full of people at 10mm and it will >> look like a funhouse mirror. The lens is best used for cases where you >> want to amplify perspective for a controlled effect. > The problem is that the human eye does not (in spite of what so many > books say) work exactly like camera and visa versa. The "distortion" > or perspective you are talking about is not due to the lens, per se, > but strictly the viewpoint, or distance from the scene at which the > picture is taken. If you somehow managed to fasten down a human eye at > the location from which you take a close-up picture, and take it with a > low geometric distortion lens, you would also see the same problem. > However, when we are close to something (or somethings) we see it or > them by moving our eye and scanning the picture. > > Then the brain sort of "scales" the images because it KNOWS that > people's heads are all about the same size, and makes the scene look > like what your brain expects to see. Very hard for even a digital > camera with a computer on board to do this. The problem is NOT in the > lenses, it is in the way humans see I think it is different from this. We actually see in spherical (or "fisheye") perspective due to the curved structure of the eye. Since most people attend only to the center of their vision (and move their eyes around to see other things), they miss this and believe that vision uses rectangular perspective (which it does approximate over a narrow angle). With extreme angles of coverage the rectangular camera perspective looks wrong with 3-D rounded objects, as does the (oddly...) unfamiliar perspective of a lens with great barrel "distortion" (the fisheye - though that is actually more correct in its representation of our vision with very wide angles of view). With a little training it is possible to see the curvature of straight lines away from the center of vision (characteristic of spherical perspective) fairly easily. For more on this, see www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:mcmurtri-330E71.21544013122006@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... [...] > The brain almost refuses to see distortion from your eyes. You have to > really concentrate to see it. The trick is that you have two eyes and > they never hold still while open. You brain can extrapolate a mostly > distortion free image from that. The remaining distortion and defects > are ignored - you can not see your own blind spot even though you can > easily find it by watching your wiggling finger tip vanish at a point. > > Unfortunately, a steady image from a camera won't make the visual cues > needed for your brain to ignore perspective distortion. Telephoto > images look flat and wide images look stretched. And (not disagreeing with you), we actually see in spherical (or "fisheye") perspective due to the curved structure of the eye. Since most people attend only to the center of their vision (and move their eyes around to see other things), they miss this and believe that vision uses rectangular perspective (which it does approximate over a narrow angle). With extreme angles of coverage the rectangular camera perspective looks wrong with 3-D rounded objects, as does the (oddly...) unfamiliar perspective of a lens with great barrel "distortion" (the fisheye - though that is actually more correct in its representation of our vision with very wide angles of view). With a little training it is possible to see the curvature of straight lines away from the center of vision (characteristic of spherical perspective) fairly easily. For more on this, see www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~ "David Ruether" <druether@no-junk.twcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:qOAgh.4834$nq5.4240@twister.nyroc.rr.com... > "Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:mcmurtri-330E71.21544013122006@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... > [...] >> The brain almost refuses to see distortion from your eyes. You have to >> really concentrate to see it. The trick is that you have two eyes and >> they never hold still while open. You brain can extrapolate a mostly >> distortion free image from that. The remaining distortion and defects >> are ignored - you can not see your own blind spot even though you can >> easily find it by watching your wiggling finger tip vanish at a point. >> >> Unfortunately, a steady image from a camera won't make the visual cues >> needed for your brain to ignore perspective distortion. Telephoto >> images look flat and wide images look stretched. > And (not disagreeing with you), we actually see in spherical (or "fisheye") > perspective due to the curved structure of the eye. Since most people > attend only to the center of their vision (and move their eyes around to > see other things), they miss this and believe that vision uses rectangular > perspective (which it does approximate over a narrow angle). With > extreme angles of coverage the rectangular camera perspective looks > wrong with 3-D rounded objects, as does the (oddly...) unfamiliar > perspective of a lens with great barrel "distortion" (the fisheye - though > that is actually more correct in its representation of our vision with very > wide angles of view). With a little training it is possible to see the > curvature of straight lines away from the center of vision (characteristic > of spherical perspective) fairly easily. For more on this, see > www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective > --DR To add some things -- it seems to me that for shooting super wide angle photos including people and other rounded objects (and some landscapes, since more natural fore-to-distant size relationships are had with fisheyes) that an as yet not offered lens type would be useful - one with some very pronounced barrel distortion, but well short the amount offered by the fisheye. Rectangular-perspective super-wide lenses are more suited to architecture, due to the conventions of architectural representations in drawings, paintings, and past photos - and due to people's conventional thought about how they see it, wrong as that may be. Ever wonder why the sides of tall buildings look parallel and straight up if we look up a moderate amount, but look like they are converging when looking up sharply from the same viewing location? Both can't be right unless the straight lines curve - and, sure enough, both can be nearly true in a single fisheye photo of a tall building, but not in a single rectangular photo. -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ While waiting for the first live broadcast in HD from the international space station I caught the first half of a program on the Apollo 11 trip to the moon. One interesting aspect was the brief bright lights seen in the cabin, later attributed to mysterious "Z" rays passing through it (as I recall). They did not appear to do any damage, though. But I watched the HD broadcast and noticed what appeared to be many tiny white spots in the image which at first I thought were caused by dust. On seeing a repeat of the program it was obvious that these white spots could not be caused by dust in or on the lens, and their sharpness and lightness probably precluded them from being caused by dust on the sensors (and they did not change with light levels, but they were clearly visible on my particularly sharp HD display at a scale of about one pixel in two million). I wonder if "Z" rays (or something similar) make shooting digitally in space difficult without accepting some damage to the sensors (and the resultant images). -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~ "Ed Velez" <kd2pm2@comcast.net> wrote in message news:BbmdnaKdB5e4vhnYnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com... > David Ruether <druether@no-junk.twcny.rr.com> wrote in message > <bNUgh.4363$D9.843@twister.nyroc.rr.com> >> While waiting for the first live broadcast in HD from the international >> space station I caught the first half of a program on the Apollo 11 trip >> to the moon. One interesting aspect was the brief bright lights seen >> in the cabin, later attributed to mysterious "Z" rays passing through it >> (as I recall). They did not appear to do any damage, though. But >> I watched the HD broadcast and noticed what appeared to be many >> tiny white spots in the image which at first I thought were caused by >> dust. On seeing a repeat of the program it was obvious that these >> white spots could not be caused by dust in or on the lens, and their >> sharpness and lightness probably precluded them from being caused >> by dust on the sensors (and they did not change with light levels, but >> they were clearly visible on my particularly sharp HD display at a >> scale of about one pixel in two million). I wonder if "Z" rays (or >> something similar) make shooting digitally in space difficult without >> accepting some damage to the sensors (and the resultant images). >> -- >> David Ruether > Now you have me thinking....I saw the same HD episode from Discovery > HD while they were interviewing up in space and I could see the same > white spots. Was not pixelation nor a weak signal since they always > stayed in the same spot on the screen. Yes. Aperture changes and light source position changes did not make any difference, and the spots were very sharp and small (and white) making dust on the sensors or lens unlikely. It seems that the only possibility that remains is that the sensors were damaged. If so, I wonder by what means - and if this really means that digital photography in space has some basic problem associated with it... -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~ "~~NoMad~~" <understanding.engine@gmail.com> wrote in message news:45847950_3@x-privat.org... > "~~NoMad~~" <understanding.engine@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:45847817_2@x-privat.org... >> "David Ruether" <druether@no-junk.twcny.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:bNUgh.4363$D9.843@twister.nyroc.rr.com... >>> While waiting for the first live broadcast in HD from the international >>> space station I caught the first half of a program on the Apollo 11 trip >>> to the moon. One interesting aspect was the brief bright lights seen >>> in the cabin, later attributed to mysterious "Z" rays passing through it >>> (as I recall). They did not appear to do any damage, though. But >>> I watched the HD broadcast and noticed what appeared to be many >>> tiny white spots in the image which at first I thought were caused by >>> dust. On seeing a repeat of the program it was obvious that these >>> white spots could not be caused by dust in or on the lens, and their >>> sharpness and lightness probably precluded them from being caused >>> by dust on the sensors (and they did not change with light levels, but >>> they were clearly visible on my particularly sharp HD display at a >>> scale of about one pixel in two million). I wonder if "Z" rays (or >>> something similar) make shooting digitally in space difficult without >>> accepting some damage to the sensors (and the resultant images). >>> -- >>> David Ruether >> Those spots were defects in the HD CCD. Hot Pixels if you want. Most >> consumer and professional cameras have software built in to correct for >> defects in the CCDs but NASA does not want this pixel correction software >> on any of their cameras. They expect to do any correction they want on the >> ground. This way they have true Raw images from the HD CCD that in case >> they need to very carefully analyze the data at a later date they will >> have the 'original' raw video. >> >> NM > And BTW: This is an excellent example of what a typical CCD in a camera or > camcorder would look like if it didn't have pixel correction software. > > NM Ah, your explanation seems entirely logical, especially given the apparent single-pixel size of the spots. Thanks. -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~ "Philip Homburg" <philip@ue.aioy.eu> wrote in message news:83md7givsopdhf5hb8q39f5o90@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net... > In article <Kmehh.4446$D9.4031@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, > David Ruether <druether@no-junk.twcny.rr.com> wrote: >>"~~NoMad~~" <understanding.engine@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:45847950_3@x-privat.org... >>> And BTW: This is an excellent example of what a typical CCD in a camera >>> or camcorder would look like if it didn't have pixel >>> correction software. >>Ah, your explanation seems entirely logical, especially given the apparent >>single-pixel size of the spots. Thanks. > It doesn't make all that much sense to me. > > In 'normal' 3CCD video camera, a stuck pixel is just one primary color. > For some reason it is usually blue (I guess the blue signal is amplified > more, but I am not sure). > > On a Bayer pattern sensor it not clear what would happen. But I don't > expect a single stuck pixel to be always white. > > Of a scanning back with a filter wheel, I expect a stuck pixel to be > white, > but I doubt NASA uses those types of cameras for HDTV. I expect that if NASA wanted their HD camera to be a high-precision instrument capable of registering a most accurate image that they would use a single CCD camera with filter wheel. This way the camera could be carefully characterized and they would know exactly where each good pixel is pointing. NM P.S. NASA has always been known for using high precision, large dynamic range B&W sensors that use filters to extract color data. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message news:elt8oj$2lcu$1@otis.netspace.net.au... > I was thinking to photograph people in town > and recording all the various fashions of the day. > > But people get uptight when a camera points > at them. > > I can lurk in front of the setting sun and > photograph them, but this is restricting. > > I was thinking of some setup where a camera > lens could sit on one's lapel, and all the > other electronic guts could be sequestered > away in the pocket, to be triggered when a > good shot presents itself. > > I have a wide-angle 7-14 lens, so it might be > possible to stash this in a briefcase with a > discreet opening, and with a trigger of some > sort in the handle. I'm rather shy about photographing people (and asking for permission). My solution - use a wide angle close in, pointed a bit off axis, and pretend to be paying attention to something in the distance instead of the person nearly in front of me. It has always worked for me (just be careful to have something behind the person that makes sense to shoot...;-). -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "roadiebob" <rbosgood@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166462845.045352.95030@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com... >I am thinking of selling some of my own photos at street fairs, and > farmers market > type events. I have printed and hung some of my own photos for my own > enjoyment and get a lot of compliments on these and many have advised > that my > fiance and I should sell them to the public. The photos are mostly from > a Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D. My fiance has quite a bit of camera > experience > and I am working the learning curve pretty much every day. We are doing > post > capture with Photo shop elements. > The photos are mostly natural scenery types such as beach or > mountain, a few > cityscape photos also. I do not expect to sell any with identifiable > people in them as > I want to avoid the licensing issues that I have seen others discuss > here. > If anyone has any experience with this, these are the questions I > have I know a woman who specializes in nature and landscapes (and I knew someone who used to...), so I may be able to help with some answers. > 1. How do you choose where to sell? One sells at the local Farmers' Market, the other canvassed offices (doctors, school, bank, etc.). > 2. How much does it cost to rent space at a typical event? The Farmers' Market here was $300/season, as I recall, for a booth large enough for a table of trays on one side and wall displays on three sides (she also has portable gear for fairs and sells through a web page). > 3. What size prints sell best? Dunno - one sells all sizes, the other sold only large ones. > 4. Pricing? Depends on if bare, properly matted and covered, or framed, and on demand. (BTW, in the '60's and '70's I had about 50 museum and gallery shows - and *no* sales [it's different now], see http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht1.html for some samples). > 5. How many different prints do you bring for display? Can be hundreds, especially if the same image is offered in different sizes or states. > 5. Do you provide frames and Mat's or just sell the print? Probably not the last, but the first two are OK (and you can offer an example of a framed print and prices for services if you want). > 6. Any recommendations for shops to do the prints or places to by the > Mats and frames from? Probably local to you - we have some fine service places in town, though Ithaca is small. You can also do these yourself. > any general advice to get started with this would be helpful. > thanks in advance > > Bob Make prints, and try it - though it may cost much more than you make at first... -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Jeroen Wenting" <jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote in message news:12okrj31r01en8b@corp.supernews.com... > "chasfs" <chasfs@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1166636981.197134.170750@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> Christopher Campbell wrote: >>> There might be a D200s, but it appears that Nikon is concentrating on >>> finally developing a top of the line pro model. >> >> Will the "top of the line pro model" be full-frame? > Anything is "full frame" for a given definition of frame. Correct... > The only thing you might call "full" for photography would be a 6x6cm frame, > which is the largest that was ever commonly available and mass produced. > I seriously doubt Nikon will make anything like that. Huh??? Tell that to all the users of Speed Graphic and other cameras of many makes and types in 4x5 - and the many 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 roll/sheet film cameras. And, BTW, Nikon made the first circular fisheye, and guess what it fit (not 35mm, though the camera it fit was rare...;-). -- David Ruether http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.comGo to: More Posts - Three Go to: More Posts Index Go to: Articles Index Go to: David Ruether Photography