35 mm lenses
You wrote: I already own a 50mm f1,4 AF and I like to know if secondhand 35 mm f1, AIS would be a good complementary lens... I think it is a great complement. In my estimation the 35mm is a great focal length for taking people shots. It is the hippest of all lenses. Pop music people love this lens because it loves them. It is great for candid street shots. It distorts scenes just enough to give them a Kafkaesque look. If I could only had one lens (non-zoom) it might very be the 35mm - at least it would be a tossup with a "normal" lens. On the other hand, if you take a lot of nature shots, mountains, lake, seashore, etc., you might lean to something a little wider, like a 28mm. Yours truly, Well, not yours really TRULY, Mine truly, then Richard Davis
Color metering
You wrote: The result was that the F5 gave a white flower while the F4 gave a very pale grey/pink flower, a +.7 compensation would have made it white. I'm convinced the F5 meter works as advertised. I'd like some opinions on what I'm about to say. I think it's great that Nikon wants to improve its meters. Still, no meter is perfect and that means there is going to be the need to compensate the meter reading in many situations. And what is it, 50,000 internal scenes or something like that, in the camera computer that it compares scenes to. It seems to me that maybe I'd be better off with my 6006 since I have #1 already learned how to compensate for metering situations and #2 it is less likely to do something unusual or unexpected. Some questions... Do you have to relearn completely the metering system with an F5. Is that difficult? Is the color metering tricky to compensate for with an F5? If you keep your old camera as a secondary one, doesn't it drive you crazy having two different systems that will react differently to the same scene? Richard BTW, I sure would miss this old group. I hope someone steps up to the plate soon.
Lens tests
Warwick wrote: Where can I find lens test results on the web? I would like to compare some Nikons with other aftermarket lenses. Here is one place http://www.photodo.com/ You other guys have some contributions? Richard
Third party lenses
You wrote: I'm just curious. There seems to be a lot of strong feelings about N vs. C on this list. How does everyone feel about Nikon vs. third party lenses? I like third party lenses just fine (anything but Canon, of course). I'd rather have all Nikon lenses, but have you noticed? Nikon can be a little bit pricey. I'll state the obvious: Third party lenses give you a chance to get a focal length or other features you may need at a more affordable price. They are often purchased with the hope that you'll live long enough to one day get the Nikon equivalent. Also, some of the third party lenses are optically near equal or equal to Nikon lenses. Some people says that in some circumstances they may be shhh... I'll whisper it... better. In other words, we can love Nikon... but let's not be fanatical about it. And I love to hear the discussion around third party stuff as well. It is certainly relevant inasmuch as it is an alternative and gives us something to compare Nikon against. By the way, I like Canon okay. I bought one and gave it to my dog. He uses it for a fire hydrant. Richard
Nikon and Pro Sports Shooters
Jonathan Castner wrote: It seems as if Nikon has regained some of it's lost ground to sports shooters.However, it seems that gear is regionally different. Here in Denver it is very Nikon. Go to a Broncos game and it's about 60 Nikon / 39 Canon / 1 Goober shooting Minolta, I kid you not Yes, Maybe you're right, that it is a regional thing. I'm in the South and I almost never see Canon in my circle. I just returned from the Professional Photographers of North Carolina convention where I saw a number of photographers carrying 35s around. All were Nikons except one Canon. Come to think of it, the magazine publications company I work for has 37 magazines from coast to coast and the number of Nikons used by the editors far exceeds the number of Canons - I only know of one Canon user in our company and that person wants the company to buy her a Nikon (there may be others I don't know about). Personally, I do think those big white lenses are more impressive to girls who model for you. Richard
Contests
You Wrote Many of you may recall that Pop Photo conducts annual photo contests and publishes the winners in their January issue. I have been following this contest from a few years and looking at the tech data I could gather that more wining photographs have been taken by Nikon than any other camera. Canon is the next highest and rest are far behind. The following are the figures for three years. 1997: Nikon - 26; Canon - 19; Others not recorded but less compared to these two 1998: Nikon - 26; Canon - 18; Minolta -10; Others not recorded but far less compared to these three 1999: Nikon - 30; Canon - 13; Minolta -6; Pentax: 5; Rest all put together 8 (total 62) I have long noticed this trend in the Pop Photog contest and others. I also have noticed that a large percentage of the winners are taken with the Nikon 80-200 2.8 and 105 micro lenses. I think people are mistaken about the so-called trend by pros to Canon. It is likely that a larger percentage of newspaper photo-journalists are now using Canon than once was the case (remember when Nikon was THE ONLY pro camera?) but the F-5 and F-100 may turn that around. Canons were for a time cheaper, and offered specialized models like the RT that uses a pellicle mirror and had faster transports. Canon did gain the momentum for awhile. But there are many Professional photographers who don't work for newspapers and I believe Nikon has always dominated and continues to dominate with these. Why would this be the case? Well, the two lenses above might be one reason. Sports and other photojournalists liked the idea they could get faster shots but, on the other hand, almost anything is sharp enough to be printed at newspaper print resolution. In the meantime, Canon's reputation for lens sharpness has improved and Nikon has increased the number of frames per second their top line cameras can shoot. So there you go. Richard
Re: SU-4 question (flash compensation)
Mike wrote: I have a SB-28 mounted on my N90s as a master strobe. I have another SB-28 attached to a SU-4 as a slave. If I set flash comp on the master to -1.5 am I correct in assuming that the slave will follow the comp setting of the master regardless of what might be set on the slave? I haven't been able to purchase an SU-4 yet because of lack of availability, so I'm speaking here from what I've read, not experienced. The SU-4 works very simply. It recognizes the bright light from master flash when it is fired and tells the slave to fire as well. Then it recognizes that the master has stopped emitting light and instantly tells the slave to cut off too. Camera-mounted flashes determine the amount of light that hits the subject by the duration of time they emit light. Therefore, if you compensate light on your master (or the camera as the case may be) what you're actually doing is shortening the length of time the flash will emit light. Yes, since the slave, governed by the SU-4 will follow suit, you are correct that the slave will also be adjusted for compensation. Richard
The F100 has been seen over US cities
Just thought you'd like to know. The F100 is here. I got a chance to play with one in Raleigh today. So, check at your local shop. No doubt they'll be getting a few in. Richard
Prices of accessories
Joel wrote If you don't think you're getting fair value for your money, you know what to do. That's not to suggest that you shouldn't keep looking at alternatives for accessories and buy them in cases where you do not need whatever Nikon is offering. (Can you believe what Mercedes charges for cheap plastic replacement parts g?) I agree 100%. That's what I've done. For example, I refuse to pay the egregious price Nikon wants for a simple tripod adapter for flash. I've found other things that can work. And Mercedes nothing! I have a Chevy Camaro and the plastic outside cover (lens) for a cracked fog lamp is $100.Should be $5. And labor is at least $40 an hour. Needless to say shops are deserted at Auto dealerships across the country. Still, Nikon, I'm delivering a message for thousands of users. Rip-offs don't make you money - they cost you business. I'm hoping some recent price reductions the company has made (for example, lenses) signals this message is getting through. And when Nikon prices are good, hey, I say, let's buy more products and support the company. Richard
Re: nikon-digest V4 #221
Andreas wrote: what i really wanted to lay stress on is that some nikon prices sound reasonable to me - as well as others DO NOT. maybe the polarizer was not the best example. rather think of the sc-17 flash cord: it's around $ 50 in the US, and $ 60 in germany - and it's nothing more than a simple cable with plugs at both ends. does that sound reasonable to you? You're right, Nikon accessories are sometimes beyond reason. Richard
You never know what you can do till you try
The 20-35 2.8 is a great lens. I use one on a daily basis and really could not live without it. At $1600 for a gray market lens, I can ... And live without it quite well, thank you. Richard
Patenting in and out, up and down, over, under, sideways, down
"Justin R. Bregar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also own an F5 and I had it programmed by Nikon at the last NPPA Conference to leave the Film leader out. No Charge. I asked the Tech to confirm my suspicion that Canon (please excuse my filthy mouth) has the patent on A USER SERVICEABLE OPTION TO LEAVE THE FILM LEADER OUT. He said that is why they can program it and we can't. Dirty Shame, I did like the option on my old A2e, before I upgraded to the F5. Drew Nope. Minolta's 800si can be programmed to leave it out when rewound. It's a Nikon thing. In addition, for something to be patented it must not be "obvious to one skilled in the art". I really doubt leaving the leader out and autorewind fall into this category. I have heard that the Patent Office has been a bit liberal in their granting of patents lately. However, if an idea really should not have been patentable in the first place it could be challenged in court. I agree. Patenting leaving a leader out is like trying to patent an open door as opposed to a closed door. This is a condition, not an object, and I really doubt this kind of thing can be patented. My 2 cents - drrrRicardo
Ambient vs 3DMBFF
"This subject has probably been thrashed at this point, but I'm still confused. If the purpose of 3DMBFF is to balance flash light with ambient light, then what's the point in using it? This has to be a dumb question, I know, but what exactly do you mean by "balancing" or "matching"? If by "balance", you mean "produce an amount of flash light that's equivalent in brightness to the ambient light" then, surely, the flash light won't be seen (as it's only as bright as the ambient light). Can anybody clarify, please?" A subject can be framed by light without being immersed in it or lit up by it. In other words, the term "ambient light" doesn't always mean a light that is "surrounding" the subject in three dimensions. Sometimes the term is used to describe light in the frame of the picture as seen through the viewfinder. I think of 3DMBFF (3D Matrix Balanced Fill Flash - or just matrix balanced fill flash, for that matter) in terms of background light and foreground light. A subject with a sunset behind them can be completely dark if there isn't a flash to light the foreground. But standard TTL can give perfect exposure on the foreground while at the same time causing the aperture or shutter speed to reset so that the background is very much underexposed. MBFF is designed so that the exposure of the background is perfectly balanced with the light from the flash lighting a subject in the foreground - with neither light overpowering the other. Richard
Italy, just where I want to go
You wrote: Hi Nick and Gil, you forgot another thing, little off topic, but important. Be aware if you're travelling with children, here we also EAT them. If you're so frightened, please, stay at home. Italy will remain wonderful. And less crowded. Wow, that's great. I've been looking somewhere I could dine on children without all these legal complications and frustrations. Save me a place at the table. I'll be right over - and I'll bring my friends. Jeffrey Dumner
More flash questions
HELP WANTED! I'm still having problems with TTL Multiflash operation. My setup for multiple TTL flashes is camera to an SB-28 via an SC17 cord and from there to an SB26 using an SC19. I have been using a small slave flash sensor as an adaptor to attach the SB26 to a light stand (to adapt the hot shoe of flash to a screw hole for the light standA) . I placed a piece of tape between the contacts in the belief this would keep the electronics from intefering. My slides (using Velvia) were completely black, however, showing no apparent flash. After ruining some film, I realized in followup experiments that the flash was popping but was very very weak when setup this way. I could look directly at it without any problem. But when I took the flash off the adaptor it was blinding. I thought the slave sensor was somehow intefering with my SB26 through the tape.But using a completely plastic adapter I have the same problem. How does this equipment work? Do the little pins on the flash intefere with performance if they are pressed in (the flash seems to work correctly when I just lay it on the floor - but whenever I mount it to a stand it won't' work TTL, although it works manual) Does anyone know the correct equipment to attach an SB26 used as a slave to an SB28 as a master? I attach the two via an SC19 cord which I plug directly out of the three-prong connector of the SB28 into the three prong connector on the SB26. Is this only an "out" plug? Do I have to have one of those ridiculously priced ASxx Adapters? This way, the cord can be connected below the shoe mount pins, however. The above setup seems to work fine when used in manual mode. Thanks, Richard Davis
Re: nikon-digest V4 #148
It wasn't until I got the pictures back that I found out I did not have one shot of a Chickadee in my hand. The noise of the N90s's shutter scared them away every time. Man, those must be some fast birds! Richard
Re: nikon-digest V4 #132
"pro"-models and pop-up flash [24] I have used the pop-up flash on a camera for a year. I have ...(etc) Regarding, the pop-up flash thread: I have a 6006 and used its pop-up flash quite a bit for a long time. You can sometimes get red-eye with it and certainly my SB-28 and SB-26 are a great improvement. The pop-up is convenient and is a very useful tool for many situations. With the introduction of the SU4 TTL capable wireless, I'm thinking the use of the pop-up might be much more important and if experience bears this out, I'd hope Nikon would consider including them on PRO models. An of-camera flash could supply the main power and the popup a convenient fill-in for weak side flash. In essence, when you buy the SU4, it's like getting an new flash too, for the people who have pop-up flash but have been using accessory flashes... Comments? Richard Davis
Flash puzzle
This one has me stumped. I did an indoors setup portrait with SB26 and SB28. I set the flashes for TTL and my 6006 for TTL and Aperture Priority (something I have rarely if ever do). For a number of shots I used a small slave flash for a background light, which was on a slave sensor - that is, it would go off when it saw the other flashes go off. Since the foreground and background were both white I bracketed exposure compensation and flash compensation from .5 to 2 stops overexposed. Now the above was my intention and I think I did it right. I could have made a mistake, of course. I could have forgotten to set slow sync. We all saw the flashes going off. But when I got the slides back they were COMPLETELY dark. Here's the bizarre part. In those shots I used it, the background flash went off and did light the background but sillouetted the completely dark subject. It seems to me that there must somehow have been a mixup timing and that the flashes went off when the shutter was closed, then the shutter opened when there was no flash (As I say, I may have forgotten to set slow synch). But generally if it is a sycronization problem at least a band of the photo will show. Even stranger and more puzzling: if it was an out of synch problem how is it that the slave flash - which works by coming on when the other flashes fire - showed in those pics I used it on while the flashes that set it off are not giving off any light at all? This is one for the t.v. show STRANGE PHENOMENON. Thanks for any help on this, Richard Davis
