all depends if you want exhibition quality prints or something you are going to delete six months from now.
amehta wrote:
Our understanding of the laws of optics has changed a lot in the past half-century. :-)
i agree, our understanding of them has changed.
magic823 wrote:
This is all from an analyst for Credit Suisse.
A possibility for Olympus is that it will be absorbed into Sony since Sony is the largest stock holder in them. The issue for Nikon is they rely on DSLR sales more than any other company and don't produce their own sensors. I see them having issues within about 5 years unless the market changes for them. Sony advantage is they are the largest sensor maker and are being very innovative, Canon not so innovative lately.
in re:nikon - i think they have something rather interesting up their corporate sleeve - stay tuned...
yes, you did. i'll get with Erv on monday and see if we can come up with something for you.
OddJobber wrote:
FWIW, I have just installed a puke shield on my monitor for the next time someone cites what Ansel Adams did 80 years ago to justify their opinion.
the laws of optics are immutible
none of whom, by the way, took more than 3 exposures of the same subject.
let me check with Erv and i'll get back with you. i think i know what it is, but... i want to be sure before i say anything.
Ansel Adams, Imogen Cunningham, Edward Weston, Robert Mappelthorpe, Sarah Moon and other foolish people not interested in getting "top notch" results always used filters.
enough said by me.
hi Stan,
i know how you feel. used to get to visit with Ansel, when he came up to Fresno to visit his son, who, at that time practiced medicine there.
always loved the Caddy with zone v on the plate and the horns on the front, not to mention his white stetson.
also loved his dry down technique for test prints - the microwave oven. he did love his gadgets and whatever worked for him, he'd use.
his son kept a baby grand in the house, just for his father's visits. Ansel was a pretty darn good player - always hoped he'd opt for the Prokofiev III, but it never happened.
PellixPete wrote:
Bill, this is rather old school but Ansel Adams wrote 3 how to books, the Camera, the Negative and the Print. While these all delt with black and white film cameras I think all of the information is sound basic information that still applies today. The books are short good reads.
absolutely! and whip me with a roll of panatomic x for neglecting Ansel. as far as old school, though, light, composition, shadow detail, the nasty vanishing point and physical practice have been with us since the first cave painting. the fundamentals never change, in my very snobby observation. (heeee)
rdgreenwood wrote:
Hmmm... "Sharpness"is a subjective term, so "slight improvement" is a somewhat better degree of a subjective quality. I hate to seem glib, but "slight"means "some but not much." I don't generally have problems with words, but I'm not sure what there is in the phrase "slight improvement" that confuses you.
are we talking contrast, bokeh, resolution, and at what particular apertures and focal lengths. that's what confuses me. when using large format, for instance, it's standard practice to match the lens and shutter to the film and meter and subject matter. so it's a little more complex than subjective quality.
hi, i'm the "purist".
a prime lens will provide better results for portraiture over the long run. i'm going to assume you are using or going to obtain a full frame digital imaging device. in that case the folks at e leitz (leica) always considered 50 to 60 millimeter lenses in the 35mm format. this would correspond to a dx type device.
having said that, one of the macro/micro prime lenses would do you well, if our lense system offers such an item.
now... having said THAT, the purist has always used the 105mm f2.5 nikkor on his S3 and F6 cameras. so much for e leitz!
jlefebvre wrote:
What is a good macro lens that a friend of mine can use on her Nikon D5100? She needs something that will be compatible in auto focus
for macro work, you want to manual focus, as the eye is the more critical focusing device. and for that the 200mm f4 ais micro nikkor can't be beat. if you insist on af capability then the 200mm f4 d micro nikkor is the lens for you.
hope this is of some assistance to you.