colterphoto1 Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
customsteve01 Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Thats just way too cool Michael. We will be looking forward to the mass quanities of pictures of pretty women. Now you have my e-mail if you think they might be to risky for the site right...hint...hint...[][][][] Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rplace Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Green with envy. Very cool and congrats! I had a Nikon FA way back when a million years ago. Great camera. More recently I had a N65. I have been toying with a digital SLR, and strongly considered a D70. Current digital is a Coolpix 995. Way to slow between pressing the shutter release and actually taking the picture. Nice pix for snapshots though. Let us know how you like the D200 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chops Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Currently, here's the 35mm Arsenal: 8008s- like 20 years old, served at 500 track and 10 years wedding candids F100- latest Nikon, doesn't have too much time on it- usually 2-4 rolls per wedding D200- latest in the prosumer lineup. Buying the vertical grip with it and it comes with 17-55 3.5-4.5 lens which will be light and fine for candids (24-80 mm effective range) 16mm fisheye (soon to be supplanted with 10.5 for digital) 28mm 2.8 af. 55mm 1.2 (which is old AIS style, only lens which will not work with digital) 85mm 1.4 big chunk o glass, will be effective 130mm medium tele 80-200 2.8 which becomes 120-300 long tele. And I just took a weeklong Photoshop seminar and have CS2 (ver 9) loaded on PC with 1.5 GB of RAM. ROCKANDROLL!!!! Michael Did somebody say 10.5mm fisheye?!?! These were taken with the 10.5 on a D50 that I barrowed from work one weekend. Also, I would seriously consider getting the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di lens. It will effectively be a 45-120mm (I think) on the D200, but it is better than Nikon's own ED glass or Canon's L glass, I kid you not. As for the D200, that's a fine camera. Nikon looks like they're finally got something right as far as digital goes. It's about time they come out with something to compete evenly with Canon. Although, a lot of people think that Nikon is starting to head down that same road that Minolta did since they have now dropped their entire film SLRs except for the super cheap FM-10 and the F6 which is a very stupid move, but oh well. Anyway, congrats on the D200. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chops Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 And I just took a weeklong Photoshop seminar and have CS2 (ver 9) loaded on PC with 1.5 GB of RAM. ROCKANDROLL!!!! Michael BTW, you may want to upgrade to at least 2gb of ram if not more if your motherboard will allow so since CS2 will eat up your memory rather quick, especially if your converting Nikon's NEF files in Bridge and processing images in PS at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Chops, that chair is a riot! There has to be some kind of story behind it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill H. Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Michael, Congrats- that looks like a very impressive piece of Equipment! Found a Feb review for those, like me that wondered? Whats a D 200........ http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Michael, Congrats on the D200! Chops, very nice pics there with the D50 and fisheye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjith Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Currently, here's the 35mm Arsenal: 8008s- like 20 years old, served at 500 track and 10 years wedding candids F100- latest Nikon, doesn't have too much time on it- usually 2-4 rolls per wedding D200- latest in the prosumer lineup. Buying the vertical grip with it and it comes with 17-55 3.5-4.5 lens which will be light and fine for candids (24-80 mm effective range) 16mm fisheye (soon to be supplanted with 10.5 for digital) 28mm 2.8 af. 55mm 1.2 (which is old AIS style, only lens which will not work with digital) 85mm 1.4 big chunk o glass, will be effective 130mm medium tele 80-200 2.8 which becomes 120-300 long tele. And I just took a weeklong Photoshop seminar and have CS2 (ver 9) loaded on PC with 1.5 GB of RAM. ROCKANDROLL!!!! Michael Like the CS2 dont'cha? I have it installed on my laptop as well, been trying to learn the tricks of the trade with the help menu and just trial and error. With summer around the corner I'll have plenty of time. I need to first get a scanner so I can play around with my own pics. The F100 is an impressive camera too, or so I've read online. Since you're picking up the D200 tomorrow, I expect a full review by the end of the week 85mm 1.4, not thats a fast lens! I bet shes a beauty. Show us what the D200 can do in your hands when you get the chance to click a few, I'm eager to find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 So does this mean you will be 100% digital? You remind me of all the old studio guys that fought so hard against digital, but when they finally made the move they continued to dominate the elite market...art is far more than the medium on which it is stored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chops Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Chops, that chair is a riot! There has to be some kind of story behind it. What's so funny about it? There's no story any anything behind it. It's just old and some of the varnish has worn off over the years. [:|] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chops Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Colter: Wot's the deal with the 'residential organ', dude, you are more mad then most of here on the Forum, I mean, how many hobbies does one guy need? It was something my father always wanted to do. The funny thing is, he only planned on building it up to about 3 to 5 ranks, but ultimately ended up growing to 19. That's over 1400+ pipes! I dare anyone to compare their best Khorn to that! LOL [8-|] Oh, and BTW, I have a total of 5 cats. [] Daddy Dee: Chops, very nice pics there with the D50 and fisheye. Thanks! [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Michael, congrats on your new digital Nikon! I'm sure you'll eventually love digital photography as much as you do with film. I thought I'd miss all my old Olympus OM-Series 35mm SLRs (I still do in a way), but now I'm getting used to digital and all the conveniences that go along with it, that I seriously doubt I'd ever buy another film camera again. Here's chops with his pro Canon EOS 10D...now that's a digital SLR not to be taken lightly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill H. Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Digital Trend challenging camera makers......... http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060410/D8GSSCG00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted April 11, 2006 Author Share Posted April 11, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Chops, that chair is a riot! There has to be some kind of story behind it. What's so funny about it? There's no story any anything behind it. It's just old and some of the varnish has worn off over the years. [:|] I guess it is the orange blossom print on what looks to be a granny type rocker. Maybe in Florida it's too common for the humor to be appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Mike, you know you could never abandon your Hasselblads! Heresy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chops Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Yes BIll, this makes me very sad. I still think images captured on film look better. I liken it to the evolution of the CD. At the time some people doubted that chopping our music into tiny bits and then reassembling it could sound as 'smooth' and clear as the LP. We Forum members know very well that what the masses did was drive the industry towards a more convenient, but flawed medium. I fear the same has happened in photography. That is why I have been resistent to the change to digital. Let it be known that Michael Colter was the last full-time wedding photographer to move from totally film capture into digital. I do like Nikon though. I still have one of Dad's old AIS lenses from the early 70's, I just found out that it will still mate with my new D200. That's the reason for buying Nikon for my first digital- I just have too much good Nikkor glass to abandon. This D200 sits just above the 20D in price, yet rivals the more expensive 5D in performance. And if I want to stay with the Nikon lineup and abandon my Hassleblads, the D2X is an awesome portrait camera. Going this morning to pick her up. Wish me luck in the new future. Michael When talking about resolution and clarity, digital is definately the winner. When you reach 8MP in a digital SLR, you are surpassing the resolution and grain quality of 100ASA slide film. Canon's own EOS 1Ds Mk II is at 16.7MP with a full-frame sensor which is well beyond the capabilities of 2x2 (medium format) 100ASA slide film. The new 5D is also a full-frame camera at 12MP, hence my next statement. The Nikon D200 is $500 more than Canon's 30D (20D's replacement) and in no way rivals the 5D in any respect. I think Canon's reputation speaks for itself. I'm not going to get into all the details here about why which one is better or worse. However, I will say that at least Canon developes their own CMOS sensors where Nikon has to rely soley on Sony for theirs, which has a long track record for failure. In fact, the D200 has already had a recall on their first batch of cameras for banding issues. At any rate, Nikon has had the same lens mount since 1959 when the Nikon F came out. They screwed themselves back in the 80's when they switched over to autofocus and never changed their lens mount and put the focusing motor in the body. Not to mention that Nikon has always had problems focusing in low light situations. This is precisely why they have fallen drastically behind in their autofocus technology and is also why they will NEVER be able to go to a full-frame sensor. Not being able to use a full-frame sensor will keep them from ever matching Canon in pixel count which means that they will never match Canon in maximum image quality as well. Canon did the right thing in the 80's. When they switched to autofocus, they completely redesigned the lens mount by making it much larger. The other smart move Canon made was by NOT putting a focus motor in the body, but buy putting a dedicated focus motor in each and every lens they made. This enables each lens to focus much quicker, quieter and accurate. You can put a 50mm f/1.4 or a 600mm /4 lens on a Canon, and they will both focus extremely fast and quiet. Try doing that same test on a Nikon, and that little focusing motor in the body will be slowly whining away trying to move that big, heavy glass into focus. Now I have to admit, Nikon has started building some of their lenses now that DO have their own focusing motor, but only the higher-end ED glass. Canon on the other hand has them in ALL of their lenses. On a side note, at this year's PMA show over in Orlando, FL (at the end of Feb), Canon's booth was enormous, whereas Nikon's booth was shoved way in the back and only 1/4 of the size of Canon's. Anyway, sorry about the little rant I just did. I guess you can all tell who I root for. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.