Quake3World

saturn wrote:
I've got the 18-55 3.5-5.6 kitlens...quite good for the low price, but i notice that I'm shooting more and more with the 50mm 1.8 lens because of the large diaphragma and sharp pictures.

The 17-55 and 70-200 VR sure look great....but it's a bit too expensive for an enthusiast amateur. Maybe in 5 years when I'm earning 3K a year.

You don't have to get expensive glass right now. You can slowly develop into them later. But the 18-55mm....eewww! Why didn't you get the 18-70mm instead? I used that lens for 2 years with great results prior to giving it to my sis who also has the D50. She had the 18-55mm and I immediately tossed it...LOL. The 18-70mm is sharp with decent bokeh if you are still considering a more sturdy walk-around lens.

Yeah I know, I wanted to start low....it's not that bad.
I considered getting the 18-70, butting maybe it's better to get the 18-200 VR or even the 18-135 if it's available.

Any other recommendations, i.e. below 900 dollars?

saturn wrote: I hardly shoot NEF/RAW since I don't benefit much from it (I don't like the hassle around it).

Yeah, it's a huge drag shooting RAW and converting, especially with the 12megapixel +20MB files on an ancient computer like mine. But with the D2x, it's amazing how much extra detail I can extract simply by shooting RAW. It's literally too good to pass up especially since I like printing big (20"x30") with those 'special' shots.

I've got the Mac Pro in sight when I move back to Canada next spring...can't freaking wait! I'm running a P3 1Ghz, 256mb RAM 2002 Dell notebook right now.... ...suprisingly CS2 runs without crashing with this puny RAM. ROFL

saturn wrote:Yeah I know, I wanted to start low....it's not that bad.
I considered getting the 18-70, butting maybe it's better to get the 18-200 VR or even the 18-135 if it's available.

Any other recommendations, i.e. below 900 dollars?

The 18-200mm VR would be a better upgrade than the 18-70mm but it depends if you want to spend the extra money, carry around a heavier lens, and wait for it... Quite honestly, the 18-70mm is great value, tried and tested, and has great reputation amongst Nikon enthusiast.

The new 18-135mm is the same as your kitlens in terms of built-quality. And it's got terrible barrel distortion at 18mm. Worst I've seen from a Nikon lens to date. Here's a sample at 18mm: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts ... -13-1.html

Skip it...

Others? Hmm..since you'll be getting the 12-24mm, maybe just get decent tele-lens like the new 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 VR if you can find use with it. If not...just use your 12-24mm and 50mm and forget about upgrading your 'normal' zoom lens. That combo alone will work 90% of the time for most things.

FanaticX wrote:Funny no one has mentioned the 5000-dollah M8 yet...

If I bought a Leica it would take film

saturn wrote:Yeah I know, I wanted to start low....it's not that bad.
I considered getting the 18-70, butting maybe it's better to get the 18-200 VR or even the 18-135 if it's available.

Any other recommendations, i.e. below 900 dollars?

Honestly, save up a little longer and get the wide that FX has.. the 17-55 2.8... If you're willing to invest 900, which is considerable, you might as well go all the way. If your ceiling were 500, it would be a different case.

FanaticX wrote:Funny no one has mentioned the 5000-dollah M8 yet...

pffft. rd1's where it's at.

FanaticX wrote:

saturn wrote:Yeah I know, I wanted to start low....it's not that bad.
I considered getting the 18-70, butting maybe it's better to get the 18-200 VR or even the 18-135 if it's available.

Any other recommendations, i.e. below 900 dollars?

The 18-200mm VR would be a better upgrade than the 18-70mm but it depends if you want to spend the extra money, carry around a heavier lens, and wait for it... Quite honestly, the 18-70mm is great value, tried and tested, and has great reputation amongst Nikon enthusiast.

The new 18-135mm is the same as your kitlens in terms of built-quality. And it's got terrible barrel distortion at 18mm. Worst I've seen from a Nikon lens to date. Here's a sample at 18mm: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts ... -13-1.html

Skip it...

Others? Hmm..since you'll be getting the 12-24mm, maybe just get decent tele-lens like the new 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 VR if you can find use with it. If not...just use your 12-24mm and 50mm and forget about upgrading your 'normal' zoom lens. That combo alone will work 90% of the time for most things.

Sound advice, thx. Part of the fun is reading reviews and comparing the lenses which will fit inside your budget and needs. But sometimes you just need someone with more experience to point out the differences/flaws of the lenses. I often check out Ken Rockwell's site for some sound but slightly biased reviews (http://www.kenrockwell.com).

wow, those leica mp cameras turn me on. I like things that are purely mechanical.

Too bad they're so expensive.

The novelty of the rangefinder soon wears thin. However the depth, noise level and colour I get from this lens/camera is fantastic.

heh, after reading a bit on the net, I'd like to see a M8 vs. RD-1 article but couldn't find one yet.

Doombrain wrote:The novelty of the rangefinder soon wears thin. However the depth, noise level and colour I get from this lens/camera is fantastic.

This picture makes my head hurt.

Backwards writing, easy, took it in a mirror.
But...
How the hell did you take it in the mirror at that angle? I would think the lens should be fairly perpendicular to the mirror and it looks like it's around 45 degrees.

i took it on my iSight camera on the macbook

His web cam, maybe?
Also note that his fingers are no where near the button.

Doombrain wrote:It's OOF but i didn't really want to subject to catch me shooting, he looked like a nutter and was very drunk. I had the 17 - 40mm on so i was right next to him.

disorbey?

lol

Doombrain wrote:
pffft. rd1's where it's at.

Given the features that are quite important in today's digital market, ie. battery life, speed of use, screen size, plus the overload of selectable options, the R-D1 is aging quickly and the M8 can match but not surpass what's in the market already. The sad truth is many professionals have long ago abandoned the monoculture of the M-system and is unlikely to return to this system(unless they are collectors). The enthusiast photographer wants the long list of features now commonly provided by the major manufacturers and here the rangefinder digitals have their weaknesses in surpassing those expectations.

But, hey don't listen to me cause....you are THE MAN :icon14:

Is that a 35mm F2? I can't see the markings from that pic. I am tempted to get a Zeiss ZF for my Nikon but it might not see much use after the novelty of it wears off.

Dave wrote: If I bought a Leica it would take film

AYE to that. I saw a 50th anniversary M7 titanium package tucked behind a glass cabinet the other day and left drool marks all over by the time I was done checking it out. ...but alas, the realization of the enumeration needed for that(or a regular M7 + choice glass) I could fund either a 200-400mm VR or a 400mm F2.8(which I am thinking about a lot these days).

FanaticX wrote:

Doombrain wrote:
pffft. rd1's where it's at.

Given the features that are quite important in today's digital market, ie. battery life, speed of use, screen size, plus the overload of selectable options, the R-D1 is aging quickly and the M8 can match but not surpass what's in the market already. The sad truth is many professionals have long ago abandoned the monoculture of the M-system and is unlikely to return to this system(unless they are collectors). The enthusiast photographer wants the long list of features now commonly provided by the major manufacturers and here the rangefinder digitals have their weaknesses in surpassing those expectations.

But, hey don't listen to me cause....you are THE MAN :icon14:

Is that a 35mm F2? I can't see the markings from that pic. I am tempted to get a Zeiss ZF for my Nikon but it might not see much use after the novelty of it wears off.

yeah, you have to love RF to want one.

Biogon f/2 35mm

saturn wrote: I often check out Ken Rockwell's site for some sound but slightly biased reviews (http://www.kenrockwell.com).

Ken is hilarious if you are a Nikon fan like he is. I like reading his stuff from time to time, but don't always agree with his views. Still, he has provided lots of helpful tips over the years.

FanaticX wrote:

Doombrain wrote:
pffft. rd1's where it's at.

Given the features that are quite important in today's digital market, ie. battery life, speed of use, screen size, plus the overload of selectable options, the R-D1 is aging quickly and the M8 can match but not surpass what's in the market already. The sad truth is many professionals have long ago abandoned the monoculture of the M-system and is unlikely to return to this system(unless they are collectors). The enthusiast photographer wants the long list of features now commonly provided by the major manufacturers and here the rangefinder digitals have their weaknesses in surpassing those expectations.

But, hey don't listen to me cause....you are THE MAN :icon14:

Is that a 35mm F2? I can't see the markings from that pic. I am tempted to get a Zeiss ZF for my Nikon but it might not see much use after the novelty of it wears off.

plus all the this bullshit aside, they still take great images.

OK>>>>?_"??

lollers, of course it does...it's just a camera!!

3 B&W conversions from today...

SplishSplash wrote:wow, those leica mp cameras turn me on. I like things that are purely mechanical.

Too bad they're so expensive.

You can pick up a Nikon FM2n + glass for under $500 :icon10:

Yeah but those are just old :icon32: :icon1:

and?