|
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. .. I was on the phone this morning with one of my friendly New York camera sellers to order some stuff and I jokingly asked about the Nikon 18-200 mm lens that almost everyone seems so hot to trot to overpay for...and he said they have 2,500 on order, but don't expect to see any for at least four months. Amazing. Where's the sweet spot for that lens, in terms of focal length? Does it have one? |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. I was on the phone this morning with one of my friendly New York camera sellers to order some stuff and I jokingly asked about the Nikon 18-200 mm lens that almost everyone seems so hot to trot to overpay for...and he said they have 2,500 on order, but don't expect to see any for at least four months. Amazing. Where's the sweet spot for that lens, in terms of focal length? Does it have one? Probably not down at 18mm. I just ordered a fixed focal length wide angle lens. I'm offering this in this thread because it's already OT, so doing it here will make the NG less cluttered: Since Saturday, I've gotten several emails offering to teach me how to master slot machines. If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to copy the next one here. |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message news:FSszg.6551 ......I've gotten several emails offering to teach me how to master slot machines. If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to copy the next one here. Beating slot machines is easy -- just stay away from them. Alternatively, you can just toss $200 worth of quarters in the trash, and save yourself the airfare. |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
... You wrote: Where's the sweet spot for that lens The trash can. Seriously, I've got a half-ton of Nikon glass (20D, 24D, 28, 35, 50, 105MicroD, 28-80D, 80-200D), but something that advertises itself as covering that much real estate is a JOKE. That's what I was wondering, but since lenses can be important in how-you-say "personal ways", I was dancing around it. I used to read Popular Photography many years ago, and they made it pretty clear that zoom lenses were a compromise. I guess the laws of physics haven't changed. |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
|
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
Harry Krause wrote: jps wrote: "The Photographer" is an image in your (evidently narrow) mind. In my mind, the photographer uses whatever equipment he freaking well pleases for the purpose at hand. What matters is what's captured in the frame, not what it's captured by. What's the problem with sacrificing quality for convenience? If you want convenience instead of quality, use a 110 Instamatic. What an idiotic statement. I'm sure there's plenty of pinhole photographers who can make your efforts look like amateur snapshots. The best camera equipment no more makes a photographer than a fast car makes a driver or a big boat makes a boater. jps Speaking of "pinhole" photographers... While tramping around Mindanao between '77-'79 an old Yashica TL Super with the stock 50m lens with a 2x adaptor served me verrrry well. the light meter quit, and after being dropped so many times, the viewfinder was actually like looking though an angular sight. but I got used to that. I haven't used it in many years, but I keep toying with the idea of digging it back out. Seeing I can't get good quality flash cubes for my instamatics anymore... ?: |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
jps wrote: I've owned everything from a 120 box camera, .." BTW, you know were I can get some decent paper film for my old Brownie 6-16? |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
|
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
|
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
|
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:42:42 -0700, jps wrote:
In article .com, says... jps wrote: I've owned everything from a 120 box camera, .." BTW, you know were I can get some decent paper film for my old Brownie 6-16? Wow. It's been a while since brownies were the rage... I actually took my first pictures on a 620 box camera with the viewfinder on the corner of the camera. jps Mine was the 'Brownie Hawkeye'. Took a lot of pictures with that thing. http://www.brownie-camera.com/27.shtml -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
In article ,
says... wrote: Harry Krause wrote: jps wrote: "The Photographer" is an image in your (evidently narrow) mind. In my mind, the photographer uses whatever equipment he freaking well pleases for the purpose at hand. What matters is what's captured in the frame, not what it's captured by. What's the problem with sacrificing quality for convenience? If you want convenience instead of quality, use a 110 Instamatic. What an idiotic statement. I'm sure there's plenty of pinhole photographers who can make your efforts look like amateur snapshots. The best camera equipment no more makes a photographer than a fast car makes a driver or a big boat makes a boater. jps Speaking of "pinhole" photographers... While tramping around Mindanao between '77-'79 an old Yashica TL Super with the stock 50m lens with a 2x adaptor served me verrrry well. the light meter quit, and after being dropped so many times, the viewfinder was actually like looking though an angular sight. but I got used to that. I haven't used it in many years, but I keep toying with the idea of digging it back out. Seeing I can't get good quality flash cubes for my instamatics anymore... ?: I remember the old Yashica Mat twin lens cameras, less expensive knock-offs of the Rolleiflex. Nice cameras (both of them). I was always impressed by their looks and engineering but I was even more impressed by what I was able to capture. I borrowed a friend's Rollei when in my twenties and loved it. Ended up buying a whole Rollei kit with telephoto attachment for $400 from a retired wedding photographer. Lots of fun to play with, great images. That pushed me to reassemble my darkroom to do b&w. Very satisfying to dodge and burn as if Ansel and watch the results develop. Lot of info on well-exposed piece of 120 film. jps |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints. Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel??? I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these guys loose with digital. Tim jps wrote: "The Photographer" is an image in your (evidently narrow) mind. In my mind, the photographer uses whatever equipment he freaking well pleases for the purpose at hand. What matters is what's captured in the frame, not what it's captured by. |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
jps wrote:
I remember the old Yashica Mat twin lens cameras, less expensive knock-offs of the Rolleiflex. Nice cameras (both of them). I was always impressed by their looks and engineering but I was even more impressed by what I was able to capture. I borrowed a friend's Rollei when in my twenties and loved it. Ended up buying a whole Rollei kit with telephoto attachment for $400 from a retired wedding photographer. Lots of fun to play with, great images. That pushed me to reassemble my darkroom to do b&w. Very satisfying to dodge and burn as if Ansel and watch the results develop. Lot of info on well-exposed piece of 120 film. jps You guys are making me think of digging out my Yashica D and run a few rolls through it. http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Yashica_D |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
OK, "weegie", would he still trade it in for an 8 pixel? Harry Krause wrote: wrote: Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints. Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel??? I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these guys loose with digital. Tim Weegie, not Weedgie. |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
Don White wrote: You guys are making me think of digging out my Yashica D and run a few rolls through it. http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Yashica_D That Yashica D reminds me of my Dad's old Rolleiflex. Wonder who copied who?http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lex_camera.jpg |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
|
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
"jps" wrote in message ... In article . com, says... Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints. Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel??? I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these guys loose with digital. Tim I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than the highest res chip available. Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning. jps He also processed each negative differently according to how the range of light in the original scene corresponded to his zone system. I suspect he would've stayed with film for this reason. |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
I looked it up Harry. We're both wrong:
"WEEGEE" http://www.profotos.com/education/re...e/weegee.shtml Harry Krause wrote: wrote: Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints. Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel??? I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these guys loose with digital. Tim Weegie, not Weedgie. |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
Speaking of Weegee ,
Here's a bit of his stuff: http://www.coldbacon.com/pics/weegee/ wrote: I looked it up Harry. We're both wrong: "WEEGEE" http://www.profotos.com/education/re...e/weegee.shtml Harry Krause wrote: wrote: Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints. Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel??? I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these guys loose with digital. Tim Weegie, not Weedgie. |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
"jps" wrote in message ... I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than the highest res chip available. Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning. jps Check out http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f...digital.1.html It appears that depending on ISO speed, digital can sometimes be better than film, even in the 6 megapixel range. Eisboch |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
In article ,
says... "jps" wrote in message ... I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than the highest res chip available. Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning. jps Check out http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f...digital.1.html It appears that depending on ISO speed, digital can sometimes be better than film, even in the 6 megapixel range. Eisboch If you're shooting black and white and not tech pan. But if you're shooting the equivalent of velvia transparencies, you'll need a mighty expensive camera in place of a sub-$1000 nikon or canon film camera. I'll bet my $150 nikkormat with a 50mm 1.4 would kick ass on the Canon 5D going for $2700 for the body alone. My $140 Rollei TLR shooting velvia is still unrivaled, leaving alone the Zeiss glass I can put in front of the Hassy body. And, so when a 360 megapixel camera hits the market, Ansel will have found a near equivalent. Remember, however, that he was constantly playing with emulsions, chemicals to achieve tighter grain structure and probably exceeded TMY at 100 by quite a bit. Digital photography has come a great distance in a short time and I'm sure we'll all (hopefully) witness the day when it eclipses medium and large format film but it'll be decades before it's that inexpensive. And it still won't come close to what I can do with velvia and ilfochrome in the darkroom. Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of digital and own a d70s but I still love film and much prefer the art of a darkroom to what I consider the pseudo-art of computing. jps |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
"jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... "jps" wrote in message ... I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than the highest res chip available. Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning. jps Check out http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f...digital.1.html It appears that depending on ISO speed, digital can sometimes be better than film, even in the 6 megapixel range. Eisboch If you're shooting black and white and not tech pan. But if you're shooting the equivalent of velvia transparencies, you'll need a mighty expensive camera in place of a sub-$1000 nikon or canon film camera. I'll bet my $150 nikkormat with a 50mm 1.4 would kick ass on the Canon 5D going for $2700 for the body alone. My $140 Rollei TLR shooting velvia is still unrivaled, leaving alone the Zeiss glass I can put in front of the Hassy body. And, so when a 360 megapixel camera hits the market, Ansel will have found a near equivalent. Remember, however, that he was constantly playing with emulsions, chemicals to achieve tighter grain structure and probably exceeded TMY at 100 by quite a bit. Digital photography has come a great distance in a short time and I'm sure we'll all (hopefully) witness the day when it eclipses medium and large format film but it'll be decades before it's that inexpensive. And it still won't come close to what I can do with velvia and ilfochrome in the darkroom. Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of digital and own a d70s but I still love film and much prefer the art of a darkroom to what I consider the pseudo-art of computing. jps Assuming a printer that is capable of at least the resolution of the camera, I wonder what the limitation of the human eye is when viewing a 8x10 print. Can the eye resolve the difference between high resolution digital and film? I know the eye is an incredible detector in terms of identifying colors, chromaticity and hues, but I don't know it's capability in terms of overall resolution. Eisboch |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... Assuming a printer that is capable of at least the resolution of the camera, I wonder what the limitation of the human eye is when viewing a 8x10 print. Can the eye resolve the difference between high resolution digital and film? I know the eye is an incredible detector in terms of identifying colors, chromaticity and hues, but I don't know it's capability in terms of overall resolution. Eisboch Found the answer to my question: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html Eisboch |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Assuming a printer that is capable of at least the resolution of the camera, I wonder what the limitation of the human eye is when viewing a 8x10 print. Can the eye resolve the difference between high resolution digital and film? I know the eye is an incredible detector in terms of identifying colors, chromaticity and hues, but I don't know it's capability in terms of overall resolution. Eisboch Found the answer to my question: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html Eisboch Forgot. Simply put, (which it isn't) the eye/brain combination yields the equivalent of a 576 megapixel camera, according to Clark. Eisboch |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
In article ,
says... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Assuming a printer that is capable of at least the resolution of the camera, I wonder what the limitation of the human eye is when viewing a 8x10 print. Can the eye resolve the difference between high resolution digital and film? I know the eye is an incredible detector in terms of identifying colors, chromaticity and hues, but I don't know it's capability in terms of overall resolution. Eisboch Found the answer to my question: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html Eisboch Forgot. Simply put, (which it isn't) the eye/brain combination yields the equivalent of a 576 megapixel camera, according to Clark. Eisboch Man, that's a pretty hi res device. Good to know. And in my case, all that resolution comes into focus at about 2 feet and moving further. jps |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
In article ,
says... jps wrote: In article . com, says... Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints. Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel??? I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these guys loose with digital. Tim I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than the highest res chip available. Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning. jps That's correct, although there are now "larger format" digitals that produce 20+ megapixels. I know they've had backs for the Hasselblad for a number of years but there's no way I could even entertain having one. They were something like $25K when new, probably less now. I'd like to rent one for a day to play. jps |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. .. jps wrote: In article , says... jps wrote: In article . com, says... Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints. Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel??? I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these guys loose with digital. Tim I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than the highest res chip available. Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning. jps That's correct, although there are now "larger format" digitals that produce 20+ megapixels. I know they've had backs for the Hasselblad for a number of years but there's no way I could even entertain having one. They were something like $25K when new, probably less now. I'd like to rent one for a day to play. jps The Hasselblads are indeed way up there, but Mamiya has some large format digitals that, while expensive, are much, much less. Check out prices on Sinar view camera digital backs, if you wanna be short of breath for a few minutes. |
For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...
In article ,
says... "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. jps wrote: In article , says... jps wrote: In article . com, says... Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints. Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel??? I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these guys loose with digital. Tim I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than the highest res chip available. Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning. jps That's correct, although there are now "larger format" digitals that produce 20+ megapixels. I know they've had backs for the Hasselblad for a number of years but there's no way I could even entertain having one. They were something like $25K when new, probably less now. I'd like to rent one for a day to play. jps The Hasselblads are indeed way up there, but Mamiya has some large format digitals that, while expensive, are much, much less. Check out prices on Sinar view camera digital backs, if you wanna be short of breath for a few minutes. Now those would have been of interest to Ansel, and, given the value of his portfolio, he could've bought one with pocket change. On second thought, they'd have given him one and a bunch of cash for the endorsement. jps |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com