~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Caesar" <caesar@gmx.li> wrote in message 
news:MPG.20fb78ad9d43797f989684@news.sydney.pipenetworks.com...

> I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10 
> years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my 
> photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since 
> I have to attend to the weddings anyway.

> I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an 
> option and would be only a back-up.

> I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think 
> why go "backwards" and not digital.
> Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option 
> (price, time consumption and quality).

For weddings under rapidly changing lighting conditions, I still
like film, with ISO set for a bit of overexposure. No need to 
keep checking that digital rear screen - if you know what you
are doing, you know you have the pictures (though the digital
screen is useful in very difficult lighting conditions). If the clients
want digital images, these are easily provided on CDs from the
printer. But, all of this works only if you have a good and 
inexpensive lab... (For low-light work, digital now looks more
interesting.)

> I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to 
> use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
> Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too? 

If you are shooting only in bright light conditions, why would 
you need the 85mm speed lens? (This lens could be used in
bright light, too, BTW...)

> Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here) 
> it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will 
> shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun 
> light and sand).

Rate the 200-speed at 125 or 160 - it will work fine, and give 
you some additional exposure error leeway. But, why not rate
it at 200 (there is little quality difference between these two
films...) and make use of the higher shutter speeds (though the
maximum flash synch speed will be the limiter if you use fill flash)?

> Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3 
> be sufficient?

For weddings, I always carried two *identical* bodies and flashes,
each with a different lens. With fast unexpected action, fumbling 
with the different controls of two different bodies is not a good idea... 
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Caesar" <caesar@gmx.li> wrote in message 
news:MPG.20fbf22ad72ac515989685@news.sydney.pipenetworks.com...

[...]
> I use fill flash and I'm limited by the shutter speed and with a 200 
> film, the 80/1.2 will not work in bright conditions. It will work well 
> in chapels tough.
[...]

As I pointed out, you can down-rate the film speed to 125 or so
without problems, or you can use a neutral density filter outdoors.
As for the fast lens, there is no difference between using it and a 
slower lens in bright light, both stopped down to the same stop...
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message 
news:f6rlcd$ihq$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Caesar" <caesar@gmx.li> wrote in message 
news:MPG.20fbf22ad72ac515989685@news.sydney.pipenetworks.com...

> [...]
>> I use fill flash and I'm limited by the shutter speed and with a 200
>> film, the 80/1.2 will not work in bright conditions. It will work well
>> in chapels tough.
> [...]

> As I pointed out, you can down-rate the film speed to 125 or so
> without problems, or you can use a neutral density filter outdoors.
> As for the fast lens, there is no difference between using it and a
> slower lens in bright light, both stopped down to the same stop...
> -- 
> David Ruether

Well, not "no difference" perhaps, but both can be practically 
used in the same bright light levels...;-)
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message 
news:rfiv831m1knbcqbdsnoq6885at928cpetk@4ax.com...

[...] 
> FWIW, I had similar lenses, f/1.4 and f/1.2
> Nikkors, but don't recall if they were 55mm or 58mm. Possibly 58mm
> for the f/1.2. I also don't recall the f/1.2 being superior in any
> way other than being more of a brick. 

Be careful of "apples vs. oranges"...;-) As with Canon, there 
have been several versions of any given FL and speed (see my
Nikkor comparison list, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html).
Nikon made 50, 55, and 58mm lenses in various speeds (f2, f1.8, 
f1.4, and f1.2), with one aspheric 58mm f1.2. Quality ranged from 
barely adequate to excellent, and I can tell you that I would choose
a recent Nikkor 50mm f1.4 over an old 55mm f1.2 any day...! ;-)
I have not tried it, but since the Canon 50mm f1.2L looks like a 
really good attempt at producing a high quality lens, I would be 
surprised if it were not at least very good, even at wide stops...

> It would take amazing, easily
> noticed superiority to make me consider anything faster than f/1.4,
> as I don't think that the extra light gathering and shallower DOF
> amounts to much.

I agree completely!

> In Brett's two recent photos, the "creamy bokeh" (an overused term
> if there every was one, makes one think of wine judge's pretentious
> adjectives - and Brett may have used it puckishly) 

8^) 
I, too, think it is silly. I actually prefer lenses with "bad bokeh" 
for some things, since it can offer better apparent image contrast 
and sharpness at wide stops, greater apparent DOF at small stops,
and sometimes useful textures in the image (see first photo at 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht1.html [55mm Micro-Nikkor at 
f3.5], last photo at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht2.html [early 
50mm f1.4 at f1.4], and www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sunplant1.html
[most]). I had to laugh when a long-held belief that wine needed to 
be opened ahead of drinking "to let it breathe" was found to be not 
only useless, but the practice let escape some of the bouquet...;-)

> of the butterfly
> was nice, but was shot at f/3.5. I'd like to see the same shots
> made with f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses to be able to judge at least one
> aspect of the f/1.2 lens's performance. The shot of the cat was
> made with the lens fully open at f/1.2, but unless I've missed
> something, the subject matter (fur) didn't really show bokeh, just
> the blur due to shallow DOF. IOW, only the cat was "creamy". :)

It is often difficult to show specific examples of lens effects,
particularly with different lenses and stops when shooting a fleeting
subject...;-)
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message 
news:v94293lc3r1q67o59peq7nf4892fjlm1na@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:47:13 -0400, David Ruether wrote:

>>> FWIW, I had similar lenses, f/1.4 and f/1.2 Nikkors, but don't
>>> recall if they were 55mm or 58mm. Possibly 58mm for the f/1.2.
>>> I also don't recall the f/1.2 being superior in any way other than
>>> being more of a brick.

>> Be careful of "apples vs. oranges"...;-) As with Canon, there
>> have been several versions of any given FL and speed (see my
>> Nikkor comparison list, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html).
>> Nikon made 50, 55, and 58mm lenses in various speeds (f2, f1.8,
>> f1.4, and f1.2), with one aspheric 58mm f1.2. Quality ranged from
>> barely adequate to excellent, and I can tell you that I would choose
>> a recent Nikkor 50mm f1.4 over an old 55mm f1.2 any day...! ;-)

> I don't know if this will help identify them, but the f/1.4 lens
> was bought, IIRC, early 1963 in the USA, and the f/1.2 mid 1966 to
> early 67 in a Saigon PX.

At www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html#URLs, there are listed
several sites with info on Nikkor lenses. This one lists lens introductions
year by year - http://fotomuveszet.elender.hu/9734/973412_eng.html.
Serial number identifiers for Nikkor lens age can be found here -
www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html. You can go to the 
bottom of my Nikkor comparison list, at 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html, to find these URLs...

>>> of the butterfly
>>> was nice, but was shot at f/3.5. I'd like to see the same shots
>>> made with f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses to be able to judge at least one
>>> aspect of the f/1.2 lens's performance. The shot of the cat was
>>> made with the lens fully open at f/1.2, but unless I've missed
>>> something, the subject matter (fur) didn't really show bokeh, just
>>> the blur due to shallow DOF. IOW, only the cat was "creamy". :)

>> It is often difficult to show specific examples of lens effects,
>> particularly with different lenses and stops when shooting a fleeting
>> subject...;-)

> Nah. The butterfly isn't needed. Just erect a photo of the
> butterfly and use that as your focusing target. The background is
> what's needed for bokeh comparisons, and it's not very fleeting. :)

True....! ;-)

> Similarly, the cat shouldn't be a problem. If it can't easily be
> enticed for another session in front of the camera, you might change
> its mind by parking it in front of your computer's monitor while you
> send your browser to . . .
> http://www.shorty.com/bonsaikitten/

Oooooooooooooooh......, I was afraid I would see this site again,
alas.......................................! 8^(
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Ron Recer" <ron48@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:5fd3sdF3c3rdmU1@mid.individual.net... 
> "Steve Carpenter" <srcarpenter@fast4.net> wrote in message 
> news:46929dbf@news.greennet.net...

>> Many pan/tilt heads and quick release mounts have a sprung pin an inch or 
>> so
>> from the mounting screw. I've yet to see a camera base with a mating hole,
>> so what is the pin for (apart from scratching the paint off my camera)?
>> Maybe it's just a pro camera thing?
>>
>> Steve

> Many cameras/lens/scopes have holes for that 'sprung pin'. It keeps them 
> straight on the mount.

> Ron 

Many video cameras have these - and the pins on the tripod
heads or plates can generally be easily removed.
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Matti Vuori" <mvuori@koti.soon.fi> wrote in message 
news:Xns99691F7C01BAAmvuorikotisoonfi@195.197.54.116...
> "Neil Harrington" <not@home.today> wrote in
> news:UrCdnaBo7bGfog_bnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com: 

>> The 10.5/2.8 DX Fisheye-Nikkor is the only one that will cover 180
>> degrees corner to corner on today's Nikon DSLRs.

> No. It is the only Nikkor, though.

???
Uh, please name an alternative...;-)
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1184163805.990419.181010@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 11, 8:42 am, Tomm101 <thomas.c.mon...@hitchcock.org> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 5:35 am, csm2mk <mcavala...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> > I have the following:
>> > SIGMA AF 24-70 EX f/2.8 asferical DG DF Macro
>> > CANON EF 100-300 f/4.5 - 5.6
>> > TOKINA AF ATX12 12-24 f/4
>> > and i was thinking that i am missing a fisheye ;]
>> > Would you recommend me one?

>> Check out the Tokina 10-17, got a 10/10 at the Fred Miranda site. Fun
>> lens, 10mm will be far wider than your 12mm. Nikon has a 10mm fish for
>> their DX cameras, don't know of any others, FF fisheyes are
>> disappointing on an APS-C cameras.
>> Tom

> What about that one, the Pelang 8mm?

> It's cheap. Don't know if they make it in a Canon mount.

Likely they do, but it (like other 8mm fisheyes) is not FF on
a dSLR - though it is interesting since it covers 180 degrees 
on the frame horizontal (in the center), rather than just on the 
frame diagonal as with a FF fisheye... 
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bhogi" <bhogi@siol.com> wrote in message 
news:1184151334.022173.264140@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Matti Vuori" <mvuori@koti.soon.fi> wrote in message 
news:Xns99691F7C01BAAmvuorikotisoonfi@195.197.54.116...
>> > "Neil Harrington" <not@home.today> wrote in
>> > news:UrCdnaBo7bGfog_bnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com:

>> >> The 10.5/2.8 DX Fisheye-Nikkor is the only one that will cover 180
>> >> degrees corner to corner on today's Nikon DSLRs.

>> > No. It is the only Nikkor, though.

>> ???
>> Uh, please name an alternative...;-)

> Peleng 8mm, but you get black corners. It works ok for me (canon 20d).

8mm fisheyes do not cover "corner to corner" with dSLRs, leaving only
the Nikkor as the one that both covers 180 degrees and the full frame.
It can be useful to use an 8mm, though, since it can cover 180 degrees
in much of the frame when the edges are not involved. Of course, the
image can be cropped to make the image area cover the new frame,
180 degrees corner to corner....
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<jef_boy@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1184129807.863648.152590@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 10:11 pm, "nappy" <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>> "GeekBoy" <g...@com.com> wrote in message
>> news:4693e36b$0$30662$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> > <jef_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1184095935.528331.158260@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

>> >> which is better for a documentarian shooting nature and buildings, a
>> >> canon gl2 3ccd, or the newer panasonic HDC-SD1 3ccd 1080i HDD which 
is
>> >> tiny.

>> > I would say the larger of the two.
>> > Just try walking around while shooting scenes with a tiny camera...it
>> > ain't pretty.

But it can be done, with some added grips and braces - or a tripod...

>> On the other hand the smaller the camera the less conspicuous you become
>> while 'documenting'

True.

> the canon xl1 and gl2 and vx2100 interest me but i can get a JVC with
> 3ccd hdd with hi def for cheaper and its a hard choice, because i know
> these consumer cams like the jvc will drop in value fast because its
> just all in the chip.
I was not fond of the picture quality of the XL-1. The GL-2 is noticeably
better than the GL1, and a bit better than the XL-1, but its picture is
inferior to that of the VX2000/2100 and its low-light range is not as 
great (for more, see various review and comparison articles with frame 
grabs on my web site, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#video).
The Panasonic AG-DVX100A is also an excellent 3CCD SD camcorder,
though with not quite the low light range of the VX2000/2100-PD150/170. 
The sound on any of these is OK, if used with understanding of the limitations.
As for SD vs. HD, without rapid motion in the video image (where codecs
can break down), most likely the least of the HD cameras will look much
better than the best of the SD cameras, at least in very good light. Be sure
you can edit and output HD practically, though...
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
news:V_Vmi.125051$NV3.15181@pd7urf2no...
> Roy G wrote:
>> "Gladiator" <no@email.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:85un939ag4r5qdnvd50s0ptqt3f3fmsarl@4ax.com...

>>>For the spelling cops: Yes, that is the correct spelling for lens too.

Not really....

>>>Which DC comes with the best lense out of the box? The store I went to
>>>is telling me the Leica lenses on the Panasonics are the best but I
>>>don't know myself.

Depends on the camera. The "Zeiss" zoom (these are not really 
what they purport to be - it as more marketing hype than reality...) 
on my Sony 707 is not only VERY fast at f2-2.6, but also VERY 
sharp to the corners even wide open, with VERY minimal CA, so 
is it "the best"?

>> "Best" for what??

Yes.

>> Or In what way??

Yes, again.

>> Roy G 

> Best lens to me is a lens which sees as my eyes see.

I think you would be VERY disappointed in any camera lens
that was that poor - see my article, "On Seeing And Perspective"
at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective
for more, and the odd-looking sample approximation of our sight 
at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/eyes-view.htm. Want to
change your opinion? ;-)
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message 
news:469c91a7$0$27244$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Gladiator <no@email.invalid> wrote:
>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> Gladiator <no@email.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> For the spelling cops: Yes, that is the correct spelling for lens too.

>>>> For the uneducated and semi-literate: No it isn't.

>>> Prove it mofo.

>> Look in a dictionary, dumbshit.

> "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lense"

If one prefers "obscure" - but look at the root URL 
for the above if you want to see what all of the other 
cited sources offer there (without mentioning "lense"),
at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lens.
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Allen" <allen@nothere.net> wrote in message 
news:46a23121$0$3115$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> Superman rules for me, or did many years ago. One of the sad things in 
> my history is that I plopped down my dime for Action Comics with the 
> first installment of Superman. I kept it for several years and finally 
> threw it away, much the worse for wear. I've heard of a copy of that 
> issue in good condition can bring as much as $50,000-$100,000. If I 
> still had it I would apply some of the proceeds to a top-of-the-line 
> DSLR and an array of lenses--but, as they say, c'est la vie.
> Allen

I remember "reading" Superman No. 1 in a neighbor's yard when 
I was 4 or 5 years old. It probably got left out in the rain, sigh!
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gladiator" <no@email.invalid> wrote in message 
news:8ck4a31p6id51ddbi2l0p3olkqi4o38p5j@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:22:48 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
> wrote:

>>Hello, ASAAR:
>>
>>Iron Man became my personal favorite super hero, ultimately.

> Stop thread crapping. This thread is about the alternative spelling
> for lens.

Well, uh, and I quote your original post in this thread, "Which DC 
comes with the best lense out of the box? The store I went to
is telling me the Leica lenses on the Panasonics are the best but I
don't know myself.", with a thread title of, "Which DC has the best 
*Lense*". Included as a sub topic was, "For the spelling cops: 
Yes, that is the correct spelling for lens too.". It looks like a troll
post to me - but it has been moderately interesting. The OP's 
complaining about further shifts from the original and secondary 
topics seems rather "cranky" to me, given the lack of importance 
of the secondary topic and the lack of interest of the OP in the 
primary topic of the thread...
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Humlark" <anti@spam.net> wrote in message 
news:Ghsoi.1106$4_3.184@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> I would appreciate your thoughts on the following. I'm planning to buy a 
> digital SLR. I have established this is the type of camera I need for 
> performance, usability and quality reasons.

> However, I'm unsure about which model to go for.

> I'm after a camera which can take extremely high resolution pictures of 
> breathtaking clarity.

Oh-oh! ;-) Not possible with what you are looking at unless you shoot 
multiple frames and stitch them together to greatly increase the effective
pixel count (see Roger Clark's site, at www.clarkvision.com - very
impressive, what can be done!).

> Budget: approx. 400 ($800) 

Oh-oh!! ;-) We all would like to work with the best gear, for pennies...;-(

>-- which seems will buy me about 10mp
> Make: I would like a Nikon; have heard Canon can be just as good.
> Model: D40X seems appealing; not familiar with Canon models (it seems the 
> Canon 400d would be its equal).

Yes. As others have pointed out, though, the lens quality and skills
of the photographer count for more than what body you choose.

> I know many are against the Nikon D40X because autofocus is not built into 
> the body but into the lens. I don't have lenses and I don't intend to buy 
> another for my camera so I don't think this is an issue. I think the 
> package "Nikon D40X + 18-55mm lens" would be all I need.

As others have pointed out, the 18-55 is "OK", but not great. The
very expensive 17-55mm f2.8 would be quite noticeably better,
but it is not within your budget. The 18-70mm is probably the best
buy around for good image quality throughout its range center to
corners, combined with reasonable price, but a good non-zoom 
will perform better (see my Nikkor list for these - at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html), though focus would 
be manual only.

> By the way, I need a camera that can take close up (and focused) shots of 
> documents, as well as a camera that can capture amazing landscapes and also 
> work well with group shots etc. I can't seem to find any documentation 
> anywhere telling me if the Nikon D40X would be right for close up shots of 
> documents.

Any camera can do this - it is the lens, or almost any lens with an 
achromat attached on the front and well stopped down (though 
watch out for linear distortions - a dedicated macro lens works 
best for this). For groups, a good lens of 28-50mm equivalent
should do, but for "amazing landscapes ", only the best of lenses
will do, and then only for smallish prints without stitching frames.
A 50mm f1.8 stopped down to f8 may do the job, with at least 
four frames stitched together (see Roger Clark's site for much 
more on this).

> As you can see, I'm pretty set on the Nikon D40X but there is so much 
> information on the internet both positive and negative about the camera that 
> I'm really not sure anymore.

Some non-DSLRs also are fine for many purposes...
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message 
news:NRqpi.20085$rL1.7725@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...

> I've been asked to photograph a company retirement party (paid) which 
> will be about 20 people in a restaurant under candlelight at a few 
> tables. I've agreed to do it but warned them that's really extraordinary 
> shooting conditions. I have a 50mm f/1.2 but that's too long for most 
> cases on crop frame D200, otherwise I have f/2 lenses at 28mm & 35mm and 
> a 20mm f/2.8 AF though that starts getting so wide it distorts the 
> people at the edges. Even a 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye :-)
[...]
> -- 
> Paul Furman Photography

I used to shoot often large groups of people in crowded rooms by assembling
them in one spot (no careful arranging necessary - just make sure all faces
are visible and the group ends are brought in far enough), with a seated row 
in the front if necessary, with a 28mm or 35mm equivalent FL lens, up two
steps on a step ladder, with two on-camera flashes (one pointed *slightly* up, 
to shade off the lower foreground [Nikon flashes work well for this, with soft 
edge coverage roll-off], and the other pointed at the ceiling), with a low enough
shutter speed and wide enough aperture used to catch some ambient lighting 
(the color differences don't hurt in this kind of shot - they add interest without
messing up overall color balance). Fix up the result the best you can for what 
you want and deliver it on a CD along with the invoice (BTW, take at least 4 
photos in fairly rapid succession - you may need to substitute heads to lose 
closed eyes or bad expressions in the best overall image). Done. 
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
(For some laughs, see www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/menu.htm)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"lerameur" <lerameur@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1185370254.570054.200700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> I am looking to buy an SLR camera. My research brought me to either
> the D40x or the D80. I would like to know if anyone has a preference
> between the two mentioned.
> Thank you

> Also, if anyone think that another camera might be better quality
> (like a canon rebel or any other) please let me know your opinion

> Ken O.

D80 = better viewfinder + ability to AF with AF non-I/S/G lenses +
it is somewhat larger, which may make it easier to handle. Both can
make excellent images, as can many others. (The more expensive 
and much heavier D200 adds metering ability with MF lenses, giving
access to a multitude of fine earlier Nikkors available used at good
prices.)
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"/\BratMan/\" <br@man.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:46a71de5$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

> >what makes a 50mm lens normal?

> You lot do overcomplicate things!
> See for yourself... get your 35mm slr and 3 lenses, 1 around 28mm, 1 around
> 100mm and your "normal" 50mm... attach them in turn and look through the
> viewfinder with right while keeping left eye open also.
> When I do this I see:
> 28mm = right eye through viewfinder objects look smaller and further away
> than left eye.
> 100mm = right eye through viewfinder objects look larger and closer than
> left eye.
> 50mm = right eye through viewfinder objects look the same as left eye i.e.
> "normal"
> That is why it is referred to as a "normal" lens... things just look 
> "normal"
> in size and distance.

Sorry, this is not correct, but merely a byproduct of the particular
image magnification of your camera's viewfinder. Others will show 
other results (remember that Leica rfdr cameras can be had with 
three different VF magnification factors, for an extreme instance?).
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"N" <n@st.y> wrote in message 
news:46a7f7f5$0$31390$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message 
> news:f87lvi$t8l$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "/\BratMan/\" <br@man.com.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:46a71de5$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

>>> >what makes a 50mm lens normal?

>>> You lot do overcomplicate things!
>>> See for yourself... get your 35mm slr and 3 lenses, 1 around 28mm, 1 
>>> around
>>> 100mm and your "normal" 50mm... attach them in turn and look through the
>>> viewfinder with right while keeping left eye open also. When I do this I see:
>>> 28mm = right eye through viewfinder objects look smaller and further 
>>> away than left eye.
>>> 100mm = right eye through viewfinder objects look larger and closer than
>>> left eye.
>>> 50mm = right eye through viewfinder objects look the same as left eye 
>>> i.e. "normal"
>>> That is why it is referred to as a "normal" lens... things just look 
>>> "normal" in size and distance.

>> Sorry, this is not correct, but merely a byproduct of the particular
>> image magnification of your camera's viewfinder. Others will show
>> other results (remember that Leica rfdr cameras can be had with
>> three different VF magnification factors, for an extreme instance?).
>> -- 
>> David Ruether
>> d_ruether@hotmail.com
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

> But it is true of my D80 with 18-200VR lens, although I'm not sure what 
> setting I have for the viewfinder focus - it's just whatever works for me.

The viewfinder focus is only intended to accommodate your eye focus to
the viewing system for the sharpest view of the viewfinder screen. The
zoom FL settings are unlikely to be very accurate, and you will likely
find that at any given FL setting that changing the lens focus will change
its angle of view (with non-zooms, the angle generally narrows with
closer focus - but with many zooms, the angle widens with closer focus).
In other words, there is no set correspondence between FL and "normal"
using the VF as a guide other than as an approximation - and "normal" 
FL has nothing to do with the way we see (for more on this, see my 
comments in another post above, and in my article on this at 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective).
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Harlem - 360 degrees 13 gigapixels, navigable, at --
http://www.harlem-13-gigapixels.com)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bob Ford" <imagesinmotion@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:vvfva31hskhvqnrnsqbdkfp72p3mfsaden@4ax.com...
[....] 

> I did some looking at Best Buy today.
> At least I now understand the difference between 1080i and 1080p
> From there it still seems it is a matter of personal preference as to
> which benefits you like from LCD to Plasma. Right now I would be
> leaning towards LCD.
> Bob Ford

I'm a sharpness nut (but with minimal artifacting showing!). It 
is instructive going up and down the row(s) of 1080p panels 
at Best Buy to check white text on black backgrounds. The 
results range from smeared mush, through hazy-edges, 
oversharpened halos, and stair-stepping (and even aliasing 
with color!). Rarely is the text properly presented. The 
Westinghouse 42" monitor (no tuner) did this the best of all,
and has an exceptionally sharp picture, but it is not without
drawbacks (it needs care in set up [the factory settings look
terrible], the off-axis performance, especially vertically, is 
poor, and there is considerable sample variation), but when 
a good sample is properly set up and viewed on axis from
6-7', the picture is amazing. The sound, however, is terrible, 
but the RCA outputs can be run to a decent stereo outfit, 
also properly set up (ignore the screams of the wife/GF/SO 
on both of these - this is important! ;-). BTW, the specs
(other than 720P vs. upsampled 1080p in the larger screens)
appear to be irrelevant in predicting how the image will look.
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"rmartin8" <rmartin215@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1186004311.976867.210960@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>I would like to attach two separate mikes, thru some kind of
> adaptator, with the result that one goes on channel and one on the
> other.
> Randall Martin

If you really mean (as it appears...) that you are asking how to connect
two mono mikes to the stereo input of a camcorder, with 1/8" jacks(?),
then a simple small cheap 1/8" dual-mono to stereo plug adapter from
Radio Shack will do it...
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"smb" <justme@here.com> wrote in message 
news:3196b39b5hdmo2njtvs60rhanb3g6ujivb@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:11:58 -0400, "Kinon O'Cann" <y@hoo.com> wrote:
>>"smb" <justme@here.com> wrote in message 
>>news:nn26b3dsods7100k0ei67t0etqu3nm7592@4ax.com...

>>> What a maroon... from the same ilk who truly believe that Bush was
>>> responsible for Katrina....

>>No, we're saying that the totally failed response to the hurricane was 
>>Bush's fault. See the diff?

> Perfect example. Nobody has ever demonstrated how it was Bush's
> fault. You guys just like to use him as a whipping boy ever since
> you wrongly think he stole the election from Gore years ago.

So, whose incompetent appointee oversaw the mess...?

>>Sorry, I can't think of one single thing that Bush has done right. Nothing.

> Ditto. He could find a cure for cancer and bring peace to the Middle
> East, and you guys would still find fault with him.

But who still needlessly blocks any federal funding for stem cell research
(using materials that are otherwise disposed of), putting us well behind
other nations in research that may lead to treatments and cures for many
diseases? And, who deceived our country and needlessly invaded a 
middle eastern country, thus upsetting balances of power and creating 
chaos in the area - unlike President Clinton, who had the parties talking
to each other? And, yes, whose cronies stepped into and interfered 
with the Florida election for the presidency, rocking a process until, in 
an unprecedented move, the US Supreme Court stepped in, overruled
the Florida State Supreme Court, and declared Bush the winner (with a
minority of popular votes and a very faulty Florida electoral process)?
Gosh, well......??! Is it surprising that many of us have so little confidence
in the abilities of this president? But, yes, he did collude with the neocons
to successfully cripple the AF capabilities of that otherwise fine Canon 
body, so that's something...! ;-)
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
(see our "restaurant menu", at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/menu.htm)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
news:46b4066b$0$30511$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

> I've been experimenting with using a circular polarizing filter when 
> shooting digital infrared images:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1053
> Wayne

Interesting results. When I use my old Sony TRV9 (FS, BTW,
in very nice low-use condition...) Mini-DV camcorder (mine is 
daylight IR enabled) with an IR filter, I also generally add a 
circular polarizer, which gives a little more control over the 
image, as you found. Some samples shot from a car are at 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/ir.htm
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
(see our "restaurant menu", at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/menu.htm)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
news:46b4066b$0$30511$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> David Ruether wrote:
"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
news:46b5130f$0$15276$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

>>> I've been experimenting with using a circular polarizing filter 
>>> when shooting digital infrared images:
>>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1053
>>> Wayne

>> Interesting results. When I use my old Sony TRV9 (FS, BTW,
>> in very nice low-use condition...) Mini-DV camcorder (mine is
>> daylight IR enabled) with an IR filter, I also generally add a
>> circular polarizer, which gives a little more control over the
>> image, as you found. Some samples shot from a car are at
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/ir.htm
>> --David Ruether

> Good shots. I have a TRV9, I have to look into getting it converted or 
> modified.

> Wayne

Any of the Sony 1-CCD camcorders can be modified to prevent the 
IR switch from also forcing the camera to widest aperture and too
slow a shutter speed for daylight IR video (first installed in late TRV9s
due to Sony's silly prudery and the myth of "x-ray" vision for the 
camera - but fortunately, mine is an earlier version, and not hobbled
by this nonsense). One day I tried it outdoors, and it worked fairly 
well, so I added a red filter, and it worked better yet. A polarizer
improved the results further, and finally replacing the red with an IR
filter worked very well. I use the camera in B&W mode to lose the
"tooth paste green" look...;-) BTW, I prefer IR in motion to stills
(it is just plain more fun - and somehow less "hokey" looking...).
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"ImpressMe" <negaspam@notforme.info> wrote in message 
news:872bb3lhhsii1air52cu0qp9817j1nbkit@4ax.com...
>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 08:02:28 +0100, 
[...]
> If I see one more unnatural, sterile, and lifeless macro-photo produced with
> ring-lights (the absolute worst lighting method ever invented) or other flash
> arrangements (as in the duo-head macro-flash used on the fly) I'd rather poke 
my
> own eyes out. 9 times out of 10 you can tell the exact make and model of
> flash-unit they used by the image destroying artifacts, reflections, and
> highlights they leave behind. They might just as well put the flash
> manufacturer's water-mark over their whole image, it would destroy their photos
> just as effectively.

How 'bout this one (www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/200mm-as-macro.htm)?
3x magnification, hand-held, using one flash mounted at the end of the lens,
pointed at the subject area (for "soft-box effect"), TTL (no other way to do 
this with tiny moving subjects at high magnification and still get good DOF
but to use flash or "drug" the subject...). I agree that dual or ring flashes 
produce ugly results, though... 
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bob" <quips88@triad.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:46ba4c88$0$3103$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>I just picked up a Canon 28-135mm IS on ebay for $300. It arrived today in 
> great working condition. The only negative of the transaction is there 
> appears to be dust inside the lens. How does it get in there and more 
> importantly how do I get it out. With the length of the lens I doubt it 
> would alter image quality much , but every little bit helps.

Almost all lenses have some dust inside, especially zooms, and unless
the quantity is extreme, you will see no ill effects from it except *possibly*
under the most extreme lighting conditions only. Don't worry about it... 
Oil smears, fungus, and element separations have FAR more effect on 
image quality than some dust or even minor glass surface scratches.
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message 
news:438ob351n25b6nufgunnv8jr5biutudnb4@4ax.com...
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>>I purchased an old 300mm f/2.8 with a flawless front element (looks 
>>beautiful). The seller had gone out & bought a new NC filter for selling 
>>it because his old one was trashed and that's how he worked, he assumed 
>>the buyer would want one. So I use it because it seems so exposed & hard 
>>to protect without the monsterous lens shade attached... though I wonder 
>>if it effects image quality. 

> No-one has ever produced comparison shots that showed any
> deterioration in image quality when using a good quality filter. So
> don't worry.
>
> I have done my own careful comparisons with modern lenses and found no
> discernible difference.

> What I have seen is comparisons where older lenses (with poor coatings
> by modern standards) were used with uncoated filters. The flare was
> certainly significant. 

> Moral of the story: If you want to protect your investment in quality
> modern lenses without having any discernible effect on your images,
> always fit a top quality multicoated UV filter.

> From a practical point of view, avoid Hoya HMC multicoated filters
> because they are extremely difficult to keep clean. I strongly
> recommend B+W, Heliopan and Nikon brand filters. They can all be
> found discounted on eBay. 

Filter characteristics affect sharpness of long FL lenses more than short. 
I have done some testing using a 400mm f3.5 Nikkor at f3.5 (sharp!)
using a Nikkor front filter, a Nikkor rear filter, both, and none (removing
the rear filter requires refocusing). There were no discernable differences
on slow film examined directly at 15X (focus bracketing was done, and 
some frames were slightly out of correct focus, but there were equally
sharp frames for all filter combinations). I also found little to no 
advantage in using multicoated filters with good lenses, and favor Hoya 
single-coated UV filters for economical lens protection - and do not see 
the need for buying more expensive filters (I also dislike the Hoya HMC 
filters for the same reason as you - and I try to avoid Tiffen filters which 
are uncoated and "self fog" within a few months, so they require 
occasional cleaning before use [the rims are also thick and poor]). I
have found no wide angle that cannot successfully be used with the 
Hoya filter (polarizers could be the exception, but these should not be 
used with super-wides anyway), but such may exist - in which case
a special WA filter, or the use of a step-up ring with a larger filter, 
may be desireable... 
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Dave" <djohannsen2@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1187037016.834719.11260@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> This is a followup to the my last posting 'Thoughts on "Multicoated"
> lens filters Options'.

> I'm looking for specific recommendations for protective lens filters
> (against outdoor elements) and I've received recommendations for
> Neutral Color (or possibly UV filters). I'm mostly after for good
> value for money, and not necessarily wanting to throw cash at the most
> expensive option.

> My camera is the Canon 30D and my lenses are:
> - Canon 67mm (EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM)
> - Canon 77mm (EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM)
> - Canon 58mm (EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS) (probably won't bother with this
> one)

> I'm not sure if they apply to the above lenses but some previous
> suggestions were: Heliopan (SH-PMC), B+W, Nikon, Hoya, and Tiffin -
> brand filters.

> If folks could remain polite I would much appreciate it - thanks in
> advance.

I thought we had generally answered this - buy Hoya
single-coated (not HMC - too hard to clean and 
the multicoating has very little or no advantage most 
of the time) UV filters (almost no color, and what 
very slight yellow may be present will not be noticed 
in the image and would be balanced out by AWB 
or MWB anyway). These are relatively inexpensive 
and have no deficiencies compared with other, more 
expensive brands. Unlikely, but it is possible that the 
Hoya may vignette slightly on the short zoom - this
would be the only reason for going to another brand
(one that specifically offers a WA filter version), and
it is a good idea to use the same brand UV filters on
all your lenses if your lenses are all the same brand
and color match. Avoid Tiffen whenever possible 
(poor rings, no coating, and tendency to self-fog).
B&H is a good source, and if you try the Hoya 
77mm for the 10-22mm first and it vignettes, you
can return it for exchange if it is still in pristine 
condition. If it doesn't vignette, then get the other 
two Hoya filters (or get all three, but open only the 
77mm first...).
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Dave" <djohannsen2@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1187050117.931676.155790@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 13, 2:13 pm, "David Ruether" <r...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>> "Dave" <djohanns...@gmail.com> wrote in 
messagenews:1187037016.834719.11260@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>> > This is a followup to the my last posting 'Thoughts on "Multicoated"
>> > lens filters Options'.
>>
>> > I'm looking for specific recommendations for protective lens filters
>> > (against outdoor elements) and I've received recommendations for
>> > Neutral Color (or possibly UV filters). I'm mostly after for good
>> > value for money, and not necessarily wanting to throw cash at the most
>> > expensive option.
>> >
>> > My camera is the Canon 30D and my lenses are:
>> > - Canon 67mm (EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM)
>> > - Canon 77mm (EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM)
>> > - Canon 58mm (EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS) (probably won't bother with this
>> > one)
>> >
>> > I'm not sure if they apply to the above lenses but some previous
>> > suggestions were: Heliopan (SH-PMC), B+W, Nikon, Hoya, and Tiffin -
>> > brand filters.
>> >
>> > If folks could remain polite I would much appreciate it - thanks in
>> > advance.

>> I thought we had generally answered this - buy Hoya
>> single-coated (not HMC - too hard to clean and
>> the multicoating has very little or no advantage most
>> of the time) UV filters (almost no color, and what
>> very slight yellow may be present will not be noticed
>> in the image and would be balanced out by AWB
>> or MWB anyway. These are relatively inexpensive
>> and have no deficiencies compared with other, more
>> expensive brands. Unlikely, but it is possible that the
>> Hoya may vignette slightly on the short zoom - this
>> would be the only reason for going to another brand
>> (one that specifically offers a WA filter version), and
>> it is a good idea to use the same brand UV filters on
>> all your lenses if your lenses are all the same brand
>> and color match. Avoid Tiffen whenever possible
>> (poor rings, no coating, and tendency to self-fog).
>> B&H is a good source, and if you try the Hoya
>> 77mm for the 10-22mm first and it vignettes, you
>> can return it for exchange if it is still in pristine
>> condition. If it doesn't vignette, then get the other
>> two Hoya filters (or get all three, but open only the
>> 77mm first...).
>> --
>> David Ruether

> Actually if you read all the replies from my last posting - you'll see
> some folks like Hoya, others really dislike Hoya! 

No - as I recall, people (including me) generally like Hoya 
single-coated filters, but not the MC ones (this is different...!).

> I personally
> consider Hoya decent lenses (at best) but certainly in the lower
> quality / price option.

Yes - but a filter (Hoya makes their own...) is a simple flat piece 
of optical glass, preferably coated, and in a decent frame - and 
sold at a good price. Not "rocket science" in manufacturing 
compared with even simple lenses which require accurate shaping 
of curved surfaces and accurate centering. Hoya satisfies the 
requirements well in their filters regardless of whether or not they
make good lenses..

> Most folks seemed to suggest NC filters, but some said UV - hence my
> roundabout mentioning the latter also.

I bet if you set your camera on a tripod with everything locked 
down, including white balance, and with the light not changing,
that you would see no difference with a Hoya on or off the lens
(some brands do make their UV filters with a noticeable yellow
cast, though). BTW, to double the color of any filter (in white 
light), place it on a white surface and look through it...

Bottom line - you asked the question, and I gave an answer, but
buy what you want...
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote in message 
news:bob_salomon-3339B5.18104313082007@news.tellurian.net...
> In article <f9qhe2$7ge$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

>> I thought we had generally answered this - buy Hoya
>> single-coated

> And get flare. 

Doesn't happen.

> The non-multicoated filters flare more then multi coated filters. Hoya 
> HMC and other MC filters will flare more then Heliopan SH-PMC filters 
> which passes over 99.9% of the light onto the sensor. Result is richer 
> colors, more contrast, apparently sharper images then other coatings. 
> Plus the SH-PMC top coating on the front and the back repels dust and 
> moisture resulting in cleaner filters and better prints.

> -- 
> To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Note the source of the comments above - which are from the marketer 
of the "'spensive brand" filters he touts (with unneeded characteristics, 
and even magical attributes! ;-). BTW, I have absolutely no connection 
with any manufacturer, and even though I'm a Nikon "nut", I recommend 
the Hoya (single-coated only!) filter as a better value, and entirely sufficient. 
Don't believe the ad. hype on filters (and Hoya is guilty of it, too, with 
rigged "sample" images showing various things about their filters that also 
aren't true). Only one filter brand is notable as inferior to others: Tiffen.
Otherwise, buy whatever "floats your boat", and do simple tests for 
flatness if the filter is really "el cheapo" (holding it near your eye and 
moving it quickly around should produce no deflections of the positions
of what is seen through it - and placing it on a tele should not affect 
wide-open sharpness compared with taking it off, with nothing else
allowed to change in the set-up).
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote in message 
news:bob_salomon-993173.10214314082007@news.tellurian.net...
> In article <f9s8vq$h25$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

> And get flare.

>> Doesn't happen.

> Does. Go and actually try it yourself. Shoot a heavily back lighted 
> scene and see what the difference is.

I didn't say it *can't* happen, but it generally doesn't - and I generally 
say something like "except under unusual conditions", but your statement 
implied that with single coated filters, you *will* get flare [much of the 
time], and was too simple a response - as was mine in response to you 
[with an implied "never" get troublesome flare...]. So, *most* of the 
time, under *most* conditions *generally* encountered by a 
photographer, there will be no visible difference between using single 
coated filters and multicoated ones, *assuming the filters are clean*.

>> Note the source of the comments above - which are from the marketer
>> of the "'spensive brand" filters he touts (with unneeded characteristics,
>> and even magical attributes! ;-). BTW, I have absolutely no connection
>> with any manufacturer, and even though I'm a Nikon "nut", I recommend
>> the Hoya (single-coated only!) filter as a better value, and entirely 
>> sufficient.
>> Don't believe the ad. hype on filters (and Hoya is guilty of it, too, with
>> rigged "sample" images showing various things about their filters that also
>> aren't true). Only one filter brand is notable as inferior to others: Tiffen.

> Nonsense. People in the industry shoot just as much, and perhaps more, 
> then ones not in it. We are exposed to good, better and best. It is a 
> perk of being in the business.

But this addresses nothing I pointed out above...
So, can-you/do-you ever recommend other brand filters when
appropriate for the conditions of use, or just the ones you market?
I have seen your posts on filters over the years, and they invariably
recommend only yours...

> But simple shooting tests will quickly show you and anyone else the 
> difference in the coating effects between uncoated, single coated, old 
> multi-coating and modern multi-coated filters.

Tiffen = uncoated (yes, I own some since some colors are only
available this way); Hoya single coated = single coated (duh...! ;-);
Hoya SMC = multicoated (or substitute Nikkors for the last
two, if you want - hardly cheap filters). **Assuming clean filters**
(watching out for the self-fogging of the Tiffens particularly, but 
finger marks on any filter will greatly affect its flare performance),
there is (*except under unusual conditions*) *NO* visible difference
resulting from using any of these. Anything else is mythology or
ad. hype. I invite people to try it, also...

>>(with unneeded characteristics,
>> and even magical attributes! ;-)

> No magical attributes, the top layer on the front and back repels dust 
> and moisture. Just go to a dealer and drop some water drops on the 
> filter and see what happens. Or come to a show and see. Not magic It is 
> improved coatings.

If it works as described, without "treatments" at the shows before
the demo... (One can think of ways of doing this, but it would be
MUCH harder to make it inherent, and the temporary solution has
poor side effects long term...)

>>Only one filter brand is notable as inferior to others: Tiffen.

> Not so. They make an excellent filter for the money. Even Hollywood uses 
> them, among other brands - albeit on lenses with true compendiums on 
> them to control flare.

See above. They are poor in terms of coatings (or lack thereof) and frames, 
but offer color correction solutionss not available elsewhere. That is why they
are used.

> The filters to watch out for are not the ones that are marketed by 
> filter manufacturers: Heliopan, B+W, Hoya, Tiffen, Marumi, etc. The ones 
> to avoid are the ones that use a third party name that is not a filter 
> manufacturer. With a filter manufacturer's brand name filters one knows 
> what to expect. When you buy private label you never know what to expect 
> as the factory supplying the private label supplier can change with 
> every production run. They are frequently only bought by the private 
> label company based on the cost savings to the private label company. 
> Not on the quality of the product.
> -- 
> To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

At least we agree on something (except Tiffen...;-) I pointed out some 
simple tests for glass flatness, the one most important characteristic of a 
filter. One can still buy cheap filters, with a little care in checking them. 
Best, though, is to buy all the same brand, if the colors are strong, so that 
they have the best chance for color matching.
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"John" <Machinist@xemaps.com> wrote in message 
news:wpidnbUxicmbwlrbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Keep the UV filter on over the CP. You would want to have protection for 
> the CP as you would for the camera lens. Some CP filters cost quite a bit 
> and more than the UV in any event.
> Jon. 

Ummmm, people fret about single vs. multicoating on UV filters, then put 
two filters together with parallel glass surfaces?!?! No-o-o-o-o. . . . . ! ;-)
(The first is a non-issue; the second isn't...)
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message 
news:13bvgsq8h5snu30@corp.supernews.com...
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>> Comparison of 50, 55, 58mm f/1.2 Nikkors:
>> 
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=24106628
>> I was curious, loking at a 55/1.2 for $280, as I have a 50mm that I paid 
>> $400 for in excellent condition.

>> Honestly, under these harsh highlight conditions, the Noct 58 doesn't 
>> look all that great but yes it does clearly have the edge on the other 
>> two. It's hard to find sample shots with the noct pushed to the point 
>> that it has bad ring bokeh, that's what was interesting here, to see 
>> what $3,000 bokeh looks like compared to $300 bokeh.

> I want a Noct. I don't want it $3000 worth. The prices are crazy; as
> soon as the dpreview crowd piles onto some lens or other, the prices
> go through the roof as everyone thinks they can buy their way into
> better pictures.

Gosh, I sold all of my 50-58mm f1.2s FAR too soon, at FAR too low
prices, darn. But, I generally preferred the 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 to any
of them anyway, so..........;-) Why take the hit in performance and price 
(and AF loss) for slightly less than 1/2 stop more speed (compared with 
the f1.4), especially when TTL metering with the "normal" Nikkor 
lenses faster than f1.8 do not appear to show any real speed advantage?
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message 
news:QG0wi.383$Qd6.283@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> David Ruether wrote: 
>> "Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message 
news:13bvgsq8h5snu30@corp.supernews.com...
>>>Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>>>>Comparison of 50, 55, 58mm f/1.2 Nikkors:
>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=24106
628
>>>>I was curious, loking at a 55/1.2 for $280, as I have a 50mm that I paid
>>>>$400 for in excellent condition.

>>>>Honestly, under these harsh highlight conditions, the Noct 58 doesn't
>>>>look all that great but yes it does clearly have the edge on the other
>>>>two. It's hard to find sample shots with the noct pushed to the point
>>>>that it has bad ring bokeh, that's what was interesting here, to see
>>>>what $3,000 bokeh looks like compared to $300 bokeh.

>>>I want a Noct. I don't want it $3000 worth. The prices are crazy; as
>>>soon as the dpreview crowd piles onto some lens or other, the prices
>>>go through the roof as everyone thinks they can buy their way into
>>>better pictures.

>> Gosh, I sold all of my 50-58mm f1.2s FAR too soon, at FAR too low
>> prices, darn. But, I generally preferred the 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 to any
>> of them anyway, so..........;-) Why take the hit in performance and price
>> (and AF loss) for slightly less than 1/2 stop more speed, especially when
>> TTL metering with the "normal" Nikkor lenses faster than f1.8 does not
> > appear to show any real speed advantage in practice?

> I don't know about TTL metering, can you explain that one? That has to 
> do with the viewfinder view not showing more than about f/2? It's 
> certainly faster than the 1.8

Yes - see my clarification above in a follow up post to what I had written, 
or here, "Why take the hit in performance and price (and AF loss) with the 
f1.2 lenses for slightly less than 1/2 stop more speed (compared with the 
f1.4), especially when TTL metering with the "normal" Nikkor lenses faster 
than f1.8 does not appear to show any real speed advantage in practice?".
If you try carefully metering with a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor and a 50mm f1.2
Nikkor (plain background, same angle, constant lighting, center-weighted)
with the lenses left wide open, the resultant shutter speeds indicated are
the same (and of course different from when they are both set at f2, when 
the shutter speed will be twice as long for both lenses).

> I just wanted to play at the extreme end and don't mind manual focus. I 
> paid about the going price on ebay and got it offline with the ability 
> to examine the lens in person. Plus it came with a special lens hood & 
> polarizing filter which is kinda odd but he wanted to include that. 
> Anyways I should be able to resell on ebay if I get tired of it.
> -- 
> Paul Furman Photography

The various Nikkor normal f1.2s vary in their characteristics at stops
wider than f5.6 and at different distances (see my Nikkor evaluation list 
at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html - I didn't like the possibly
defective sample of the 58mm f1.2 Noct at wide stops, the 55mms 
were very so-so, and the 50mm varied considerably with distance
(poor near infinity, excellent at medium-close distances wide open).
The 50mm f1.4 AIS is a bit low contrast at f1.4, but is a very good
performer at most distances by f2 (about equal to the f1.8 +/-). 
BTW, there really isn't much DOF difference with a stop change in 
aperture - and using a slower lens that is sharp wide open gives you
a round OOF highlight, at least near the center of the frame...
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message 
news:13c4pkmbl0cj287@corp.supernews.com...
> David Ruether <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

>> If you try carefully metering with a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor and a 50mm f1.2
>> Nikkor (plain background, same angle, constant lighting, center-weighted)
>> with the lenses left wide open, the resultant shutter speeds indicated are
>> the same (and of course different from when they are both set at f2, when
>> the shutter speed will be twice as long for both lenses).

> I have both lenses, just tried exactly what you describe, and this is not
> the case. I see a consistent half-stop difference in the metering between
> the 50/1.4 at f/1.4 and the 50/1.2 at f/1.2. Which is exactly what it
> should be. A 50/1.8 matches up with expectation as well, two-thirds of
> a stop away from the 1.4. 
> -- 
> Jeremy

Thanks for the information, though different from my experience. I used
a camera with an analogue meter that would show fine differences in
exposure - not locked into the 1/3rd or 1/2 stop increments we are now 
stuck with (and center weighted, plain target, manual focus with lenses 
set to infinity focus, viewfinder covered by my eye, etc.), and found no 
metered difference. This, of course, does not mean that your observation
is incorrect! ;-)
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message 
news:f9v885$nlq$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message 
news:13c4pkmbl0cj287@corp.supernews.com...
>> David Ruether <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

>>> If you try carefully metering with a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor and a 50mm f1.2
>>> Nikkor (plain background, same angle, constant lighting, center-weighted)
>>> with the lenses left wide open, the resultant shutter speeds indicated are
>>> the same (and of course different from when they are both set at f2, when
>>> the shutter speed will be twice as long for both lenses).

>> I have both lenses, just tried exactly what you describe, and this is not
>> the case. I see a consistent half-stop difference in the metering between
>> the 50/1.4 at f/1.4 and the 50/1.2 at f/1.2. Which is exactly what it
>> should be. A 50/1.8 matches up with expectation as well, two-thirds of
>> a stop away from the 1.4.
>> -- 
>> Jeremy

> Thanks for the information, though different from my experience. I used
> a camera with an analogue meter that would show fine differences in
> exposure - not locked into the 1/3rd or 1/2 stop increments we are now
> stuck with (and center weighted, plain target, manual focus with lenses
> set to infinity focus, viewfinder covered by my eye, etc.), and found no
> metered difference. This, of course, does not mean that your observation
> is incorrect! ;-)
> -- 
> David Ruether

I just thought of a possible explanation for the differences in our observations.
You are likely using a newer body and I probably used a Nikon F2 or 
FE-2. The newer bodies have much narrower metering coverage (and little 
frame edge coverage), even when used in "center-weighted" mode, so they
bypass the effects of illumination roll-off near the frame edges (which is, of 
course, greatest at the widest stops). Using spot metering or narrow angle 
center weighted metering should give you the results you got - but using a 
camera that meters the whole frame area, even if the metering is somewhat 
stronger toward the frame center, may well give the results I saw (both the 
50mm f1.4 and f1.2 are limited in front element size by the 52mm filter thread
size, and the f1.2 is more likely to have greater edge illumination roll off...).
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message 
news:13c6nd4if3r0qf4@corp.supernews.com...
> David Ruether <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

>> You are likely using a newer body and I probably used a Nikon F2 or
>> FE-2. The newer bodies have much narrower metering coverage (and little
>> frame edge coverage), even when used in "center-weighted" mode, so they
>> bypass the effects of illumination roll-off near the frame edges (which is, of
>> course, greatest at the widest stops). Using spot metering or narrow angle
>> center weighted metering should give you the results you got - but using a
>> camera that meters the whole frame area, even if the metering is somewhat
>> stronger toward the frame center, may well give the results I saw (both the
>> 50mm f1.4 and f1.2 are limited in front element size by the 52mm filter thread
>> size, and the f1.2 is more likely to have greater edge illumination roll
>> off...).

> I used center-weighted, which I have set to the 13mm circle (the largest
> one). I just tried it with flat-field average and still saw the same
> results. Of course, my camera (D2x) is APS-size frame.

Ah, I think we have the reason for our different findings... Small metered
area in the center of the lens' coverage (where all lenses designed for full 
frame should show close to their rated speed wide open), vs. much larger
metered area, which would include and average in the considerable edge
illumination roll off of the fastest lenses, with the f1.2 almost certainly
worse in this respect than the f1.4, given their similarly limited front sizes
and rear extensions.

> But if the difference you see is due to edge falloff, that is a different
> thing from actually lacking light transmission. 
> -- 
> Jeremy

That depends on your definition...;-) If you define it only as transmission
to the image center, then yes - but if you define it as an average over the
illuminated area or format area that the lenses were designed to cover, 
then no... For DX-sized sensors, for practical purposes the two lenses
are almost a half stop different in speed, but for full frame, for practical
purposes they are the same speed.
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message 
news:tD4wi.497$%Y7.417@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote

>> Why take the hit in performance and price (and AF loss) with the
>> f1.2 lenses for slightly less than 1/2 stop more speed (compared with the
>> f1.4), especially when TTL metering with the "normal" Nikkor lenses faster
>> than f1.8 does not appear to show any real speed advantage in practice?
>> If you try carefully metering with a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor and a 50mm f1.2
>> Nikkor (plain background, same angle, constant lighting, center-weighted)
>> with the lenses left wide open, the resultant shutter speeds indicated are
>> the same (and of course different from when they are both set at f2, when
>> the shutter speed will be twice as long for both lenses).

> The whole metering process is kind of sketchy. Lots of times I'll 
> adjust a whole stop in the aperture & the shutter speed won't 
> change, then move the frame a tad & the shutter shanges at the 
> same aperture.

See above. For any meaningful check, you must keep all possible
variables fixed...

> The fact that you can't see any difference in the viewfinder doesn't 
> matter for the image captured. The image captured will have a 
> shallower DOF & bigger, OOF circles & a softer background. I like 
> those big soft oof circles, that's what I got the lens for.

The difference in DOF between a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 and a Nikkor
50mm f1.2, both wide open, is miniscule. Focus distance will have far
more influence, as will, of course, the stop used (except for f1.4 vs.
f1.2...). Near infinity focus, the 50mm f1.2 is so bad at f1.2 (and the
50mm f1.4 so relatively good) that the choice is easy. At 3'-8' or so,
the choice reverses...

>>>I just wanted to play at the extreme end and don't mind 
>>>manual focus. I paid about the going price on ebay and got it offline 
>>>with the ability to examine the lens in person. Plus it came with 
>>>a special lens hood & polarizing filter which is kinda odd but 
>>>he wanted to include that. Anyways I should be able to resell on 
>>>ebay if I get tired of it.

>> The various Nikkor normal f1.2s vary in their characteristics at stops
>> wider than f5.6 and at different distances (see my Nikkor evaluation list
>> at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html - I didn't like the possibly
>> defective sample of the 58mm f1.2 Noct at wide stops, the 55mms
>> were very so-so, and the 50mm varied considerably with distance
>> (poor near infinity, excellent at medium-close distances wide open).
>> The 50mm f1.4 AIS is a bit low contrast at f1.4, but is a very good
>> performer at most distances by f2 (about equal to the f1.8 +/-).
>> BTW, there really isn't much DOF difference with a stop change in
>> aperture - and using a slower lens that is sharp wide open gives you
>> a round OOF highlight, at least near the center of the frame...

> I'm sure there isn't much DOF difference. I just did a little mini-test 
> of OOF circles & the 50/1.2 looks a little smoother at 1.2 
> than 1.4 (not much) and significantly different at 1.8. Yeah, it's a 
> minor difference but if that's the look I'm going for, I 
> might as well go all the way. For anything like f/2.8 or 'really' 
> stopped down, I use a different lens.
> -- 
> Paul Furman Photography

Yes - as I said, using a slower lens, say an f2.8, at f2.8 gives you a
round OOF highlight (near the image center, anyway...). The f1.2
is at a disadvantage at that stop if you are looking for round OOF
highlight rendition at f2.8. The 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor is excellent
for this. You are just seeing the shape of the diaphragm at a given
stop, revealed by shooting OOF highlights...
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"yetanotherBob" <yetanotherbob@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.212bd8f197ed0f35989834@news.erols.com...

> I'll be buying a Sony DCR-HC96 SD MiniDV video camera for my wife to 
> use, and I'm wondering whether the choice of tapes is of any particular 
> importance. Most of the tape information I've found on the web and in 
> newsgroups so far seems either pretty dated or biased towards selling 
> one brand or another. 

> I seem to recall reading somewhere that, over the life of a camera, it's 
> best to stick with one brand of tape rather than switching around and 
> using whatever brand you can get your hands on. Is this true, and is 
> there a hierarchy of tape brands from "best" to "better" to "good" and 
> on down to the "avoid" category? 

> In the little bit of shopping I've done so far, I have seen an 
> appreciable difference in price between, say, Panasonic brand (cheaper) 
> and JVC brand (more expensive) at a single retailer. Does price 
> translate to "quality" in any meaningful way?

> Based on the assumption that Sony wouldn't want to make their cameras 
> look bad by selling a crummy tape product with their name on it, my 
> inclination is to stick with Sony branded tape.

> Any pointers? Thanks.

> Bob

I still consider it wise to use one brand of tape (only!) though in 
practice it is likely, no matter what the brand name on it, to have
been made by either Sony or Panasonic - but who knows what 
is what. Particularly important, as I recall, was not mixing the 
premium Panasonic with *anything* else (different and incompatible 
lubricants). In the Sony line, there are four usable grades. From 
lowest to highest quality - Premium, Excellence, DVCam, and HD 
(selecting the Mini-DV sized cassettes, of course, for your camera). 
Though the picture and sound will be identical with all, "Excellence" 
is a good choice for a balance between price, signal longevity, and 
minimized head wear.
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"yetanotherBob" <yetanotherbob@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.212ccf9792259749989835@news.erols.com...
> In article <MPG.212bd8f197ed0f35989834@news.erols.com>, 
> yetanotherbob@gmail.com says...

>> Original posting snipped

> Thanks for the responses. Good info. The advice about not re-using the 
> tapes sounds like a good plan - each tape becomes its own archive rather 
> than being transferred to some other storage form and then re-used. 

Correct, though I'm less "futchy" about reuse than "PTravel" - the tapes
actually are fairly durable. Copy the edited video back to two tapes and
store them properly (upright, dry, cool, and dark) for archiving. This is
much better than archiving on DVDs (lower quality, far less permanent 
or reliable).

> I haven't picked up the camera yet, so it will be interesting to see 
> what grade of Sony tape they bundle with it - Excellence or something 
> else.

Probably nothing except a recommendation to use Sony tape...;-)

> New question #1: Any pointers on "cleaning tapes"? Are they needed if 
> you only run each tape through no more than twice and use good quality, 
> name brand tapes?

WATCH OUT FOR CLEANING TAPES! These should NOT be used 
except if needed! The fast-spinning Mini-DV heads can be quickly worn
out with incorrect use of the cleaning tape. I use a Sony cleaning tape
only if major dropouts show (VERY rarely - and that tape gets junked).
My procedure is to put the tape in, MAKING SURE THAT THE 
CAMERA IS IN VCR MODE AND NOT CAMERA MODE (the
heads spin continuously in camera mode, not in VCR mode). I start
play and run 5 seconds only! I then wait 30+ seconds for the heads to 
cool, and repeat once - or twice, maximum. If the heads are still showing 
problems on a new tape, I may repeat this process once (using only two 
5-second passes). If that is not sufficient, the heads probably need to 
be looked at professionally. Taking care to use good tapes well will
likely prevent any problem requiring head cleaning (the tapes themselves
clean the heads - and can be used as gentle cleaning tapes as a first try
with solving a problem).

> New question #2: Is it best to rewind tapes for archival storage, or 
> leave them be after doing a playback to transfer their contents to disk 
> or whatever? I know from my reel-to-reel audio days of old that print-
> through was less likely to occur if reels were left on the takeup side 
> after playing, because of the lighter playback tension vs. heavier, less 
> even rewind tension on the tape. 

I prefer to rewind the tape fully to avoid tape side displacements and 
tension changes from playback starts/stops. Don't rewind while playing 
the tape - stop the tape, wind it to the end, then rewind it fully. The tape 
load with these tiny tapes is FAR less than with the big 10 1/2" audio 
reels, and the tape itself is not all that physically different, so there is 
less of a problem. BTW, there is no appreciable print through with 
digital, at least for a very long time...
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<Jim> wrote in message 
news:2007081722260616807-@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> On 2007-07-07 19:36:06 -0400, Yan <yvinogradov@gmail.com> said:

>> Hi, I have a film camera (Nikon FM10) and am looking into buying a
>> digital SLR. The thing is that I would like to keep my current lenses,
>> so I guess I am better off with Nikon brand. Someone told me that not
>> all digital SLR's from Nikon (such as D40) work with older lenses. So
>> my question is - what is the cheapest SLR that would be compatible
>> with my current lenses (a non auto focus prime, a 70-210 telephoto
>> which is an auto focus, it doesn't have a built-in motor but is to be
>> motored from the camera, and some rather useless non-auto focus 35-70
>> that came with my FM10). I don't care much for auto focus, but would
>> like to be able to fit my old lenses in a plug-and-play mode, without
>> buying any adapters and such. Thanks!

> Simple.. D200. Nothing less will work with these lenses. There are 
> no adapters which make your lenses work with the D40, D50, D70(s) or 
> D80. 
> Jim

While the above answer is technically correct, the price (judging from
your present gear) and weight/size of the D200 may make it uninteresting.
An alternative, if you are willing to separately meter or make trial
exposures with your MF lenses, is the D80 (same excellent VF for 
manual focusing, but the body is a much nicer size and weight and the
price is considerably lower). If you plan on replacing your old MF lenses 
soon with AF ones (which meter properly on the D80, but may not AF
or meter properly on the D40, depending on lens focus type), this 
option looks even better...
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> >> Bob Salomon wrote:
>> >>> In article <ls6dnSSOAqr-11rbnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@comcast.com>

[...]
> UV filters are slightly yellowish. Higher value UV filters are very 
> yellow.

For "kicks", I took Hoya and Nikkor UV filters into daylight (overcast)
and placed them on a white paper (this doubles the visual color effect 
of filters). The two filters then showed a similar VERY slight yellow
color, not enough to show in photos except possibly with extremely 
critical side-by-side comparisons (with WB and all else locked down), 
and even then I doubt that the filter effect on the image could be spotted. 
AWB or MWB would also eliminate any possible effect while picture 
taking, miniscule as that could possibly be. It is true that some stronger 
UV filters do exist, and these do have noticeable colors - but if your 
UV filter looks clear, you can treat it as if it were clear. BTW, the 
camera lens absorbs most UV, unless it is of very simple design, so 
the choice of a UV vs. a clear "protection" filter is really moot 
anyway with most lenses and UV filters...
-- 
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com



Go to:  More Posts Nine
Go to:  More Posts Index
Go to:  Articles Index
Go to: 
David Ruether Photography