Are any of you also avid photographers as I am? I shoot with the following equipment

Nikon D80 (digital)
Nikkor 28-80/F3.5
Nikkor AF-D 80-200/F2.8 (my best lens)
Speedlight SB-800
Nikon N70 (film)
A cheap Quantaray Tripod (that I hope to replace soon with a Bogen).

Additionally, I have a couple of antique cameras. An Argus brick and two Russian cameras - a Kiev 35mm and a Medium format camera whose name I can't type here because of the Cyrillic alphabet.

Here's my Flickr site where I keep the photos I wish to share.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23469386@N04/

Anyone else?

As for film vs. digital, I was fortunate enough not to have a major investment in film gear when digital finally came of age.

A few years ago, I was at Giants Fantasy Camp and a gent who had been the team's official photographer for years was there to shoot our inept activities. I glanced at his rig and said, "Film?" He grimaced and spun out a well-worn response: "Look, I drive a 1965 Mustang. I don't do digital."

I grinned and said, "I drive a '68 Mustang, wear a mechanical watch, shave with a safety razor... and I shoot digital."

I can totally understand the reaction on the Canon vs. Nikon issues. I stayed Nikon but quite possibly would have switched to Canon except that I had the investment in lenses from my N70 that were compatible with the D80. However, had I gone Canon I really would have dived deep and gone for the 5D.

I do think that the lighting system on Nikon (CLS) is special though. Not that it can't be achieved with other flashes but not so easily as with CLS.

My biggest gripe about most digital cameras today is the 1.5x crop factor. A hand full of cameras, the Canon 5D among them, have a full frame sensor and no crop. Its a big deal. With my 17mm lens I'm only getting ~25mm angle of coverage when its attached to the D80 (the 40D also has the crop factor). I only get 17mm when I attach the lens to my film camera.

When you refer to tabletop lighting - do you mean a murphy board? You did a lot of product photography where you needed the light to come from all directions in order to have no shadowing?

Actually, I didn't know about the Contax connection. I inherited the Kiev from my g/f's grandfather who bought it new in the 1940s or 50s and shot with it all the way up until his death in 2005. When I went to Russia to meet the family I was a little bit under the microscope. The grandparents were terribly worried about their granddaughter dating an American.

However, he and I got together and talked cameras, a little bit of politics and a little bit of history (with my g/f translating) and all was alright. Won them over. Because of limited resources in Russia things are saved forever. It was quite a special gift when after he had passed and the wife (ie g/f's grandmother) presented it to me.

He was a very interesting guy. He had been born in 1921 and had seen a lot.

Here's an article on the Kiev/Contax connection.

http://www.photoethnography.com/Classic ... ~mainFrame

I did remember the bit about the Zeiss manufacturing equipment being captured by the Russians.

hmmmmmmm............ seems like I'm the rookie here amongst some serious photograhers <G>

used my Canon AE1-P for many years- bought some fast lenses, bogen studio lighting and got working in portraits, (the home studio bit)- had to pay for all the new equipment- even went as far as taking a college color dark room class (after the requisite intro etc classes)! was about to build the famous home color darkroom and about half way through came to the realization that digital would eventually upsurp film. After some considerable speculation (read expensive!) I invested in a cheap ($300) Kodak 2 mp digital camera- very point and shoot ! my film equipment has gathered dust since.

Eventually my wife bought a Nikon Coolpix 5700 for me (sadly only 5 mp the next step gets expensive)- this is what I currently employ- I enjoy the creative aspect of playing around on the computer and making all the changes which previously meant tedious darkroom work (dodge and burn etc)

the only real problem I have with the current digital technology is the lag from triggering the shutter (an archaic term there) and the cameras response time - yep realize I can eliminate most of the lag but only at great cost to photo quality ! I encounter this problem mostly when I'm trying to catch action shots in sports. in other areas this is not so much a criticial factor.

sorry folks no photos on a website though- would enjoy sharing them though <G>

just browsed through some of the photos by Jack Kelly and JohnBlack- excellent work gentlemen ! hopefully you've seen fit to print enlargements of some of your work and it graces the walls of your homes -thanks for sharing

Nick - it sounds that you got into it as a pro or semi-pro. When you talk of the home studio thing, were you hiring yourself out as portrait photographer?

The lag time between shutter push and photo completion can be a real hassle when taking shots of moving objects. Many of the DSLRs do a better in regards to camera lag...but alas, that is more money. My Nikon D80 is good for taking action shots (but not the best) and it cost me about $900 for the body. I believe the price has dropped a little bit and they might be locatable in the 750+ range now. On the Canon side you might look, if you're so inclined, for something 2nd hand in the Rebel line. I stayed Nikon when I transitioned from film because all my film lenses were compatible with the Nikon Digital cameras. A BIG savings.

Here is an article on lens compatibility - perhaps you could see if the Canon lenses you already own are compatible with any of todays Digital Canons.
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html

Once you own a digital camera your costs drop dramatically after the up front pay out. I can shoot thousands of frames and its now all free. Doesn't cost me anything more than the electricity necessary to charge my batteries back up. Even printing is cheaper because there are no development costs and I ONLY print the ones I like. Prices for a print from .jpg start out at about .23 cents for a 4x6 - and I know there are better deals out there.

Try calculating the costs for any remaining film photos you are taking against how long it would take for a digital body to pay for itself.

Yes, focus and shutter lag are what made me regretfully retire my Oly E-20. Lovely cam, great glass, nice imaging, a solid metal chunk to hang on to... but closer to view camera speeds than film SLR.

Most newer cams are somewhere between acceptable and "lag? what lag?" My daily cam is a Canon A95 and it can be a trifle slow on really fast action but nothing like my older digitals, which required very deliberate thought to capture fast things.

The 40D is another story - the next thing to zero lag, allowing for autofocus and exposure lock. It will rip off 3 fps all day and 6+ fps until the buffer loads, at which it slows to around 4 fps forever. I tried loading a 4GB card and got bored (and my finger got tired) long before the cam ran out of steam. The 40 is not 'orribly expensive (about $1100 for the body, or about $1350 with either of two very nice lenses that sell for $4-450 each separately). It's been out just long enough for the price to stabilize, and I decided a couple of hundred more, net, was a better deal than top-top dollar for a 450D (which still hasn't been released).

If you're lucky enough to have a stable of Nikon lenses, there is of course no downside to staying with Nikon bodies. Since I was starting with a completely clean sheet of paper, the 25-50% premium for Nikon, all wonderfulness aside, just wasn't worth it to me. Canon is either par or a pro's tick behind at significantly better pricing when there's no legacy issues to consider.

I've always said the same about film - if you have a significant investment in film bodies and lab equipment, not to mention darkroom expertise, it's not a compelling switchover. Or hasn't been, until now. The quality of good digital bodies (assuming you have a stable of compatible lenses already) and the shooting economics, coupled with flexibility only matched by the very best-equipped darkroom, means - IMVVHO - that it's time to jump.

JohnBlack- sheeesh about 5 huge paragraphs detailing my pro efforts just went "poof'- count it as blessing from boredom- in response to your question, yes i came out of the chutes (read college portraitrure class) endeavoring to make money due to some photograpghy purchases

shot as a part time pro free lancing about anything- then with the arrival of 4 sons to the "picture" did only family photos- with the advent of digital got back into the field and have been enjoying the freedom of few print costs (hey if it's worth printing it's got to be at least 8X10 or better!)- but with this freedom comes a burden with this format

still, am wishing and hoping that they soon will replicate my canon slr in digital form and i can shoot without the constant thought involved in mastering a new format- i don't need or desire the multiple programs available- just let me handle it like a manual slr !!! no lag, no worries about the auto focus, never wondering what f/stop the camera defaulted to ..............

but i digress <G>

would like to jump back into the field but as more than a hack working for someone else or free lancing again yeegads i hate the marketing end of it! all i want to do is shoot shoot shoot !! so as retirement stares me in the face, i'm left to ponder what next- it's kinda nice <G>

Sorry for the dalliance in replying to you johnblack- you queried whether i could delve into photography in my current professional field- ahhhh..... thinking there's not alot of market interest nor fun in photographing the people and activities of the US Postal Service <G>- but seriously, my life long (over 45 years) interest and involvment in baseball is a area where I can enjoy both the work itself and possibly make some profit- well not possibly, have already sold sports action photos to parents of players- also see the local small town newspaper advertising for a sports photojournalist so there's another avenue which could prove interesting.

I quake at the thought of pigeon holing myself though- there's just so much around me that i can see as a great photo waiting to be captured- if you can find a patron who will pay me to aimlessly wander and accept for mucho bucks the work i produce, well you got your boy right here !<G>- at my "advanced" age though, the possibilities do dwindle somewhat- but an "artist" works without thought of tangible reward right? hmmmmmmm............ can see trying to pass that one off on my wife

perhaps postumously i will gain an audience right? hey wanna buy some futures ?

not a whine to be had here however- i am who i am and i do what i do- got a good life with alot of things and people to keep me interested and enlivened

i did notice your interest in photographing dancers though and figured, even before i read of, your involvment in dance - when you have a passion for something, that feeling will be captured in your photography- good luck here and keep up the good work (as i saw in your website postings)- carpe diem !

Nick

I really have no business contributing to a discussion of photography, but there are a couple of blogs I follow that might be of interest to one or more of you. I noticed mention of dance photography. A guy named Dave Levingston blogs about his dance and figure photography (some entries are art nudes, so occasionally it's NSFW): .

Another is a blog of gorgeous photography on pretty much any subject: .

I'm also privileged to be an acquaintance of Bill Atkinson, one of the original developers of the Macintosh operating system and now a very talented nature photographer and innovator in photographic and printing technology: .

Got some good news yesterday. seems that a documentary photo of mine was published recently. It's my first "real" publication !

several years ago, I dove into a photography project documenting the construction of the Minnesota Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The capper to this was an aerial photo of the monument and grounds. Somehow a professor in Wales UK came across my photo and contacted me cc it's usage in his "scholarly" paper. Gave him this right and never heard from him and, over time, figured that his effort went "clank".

But I recently discovered out that he was collaborating with other writers to publish a volume about landscape architecture/memorials. Found that my photo was published in a book called "Places of Commemoration: Search for Identity and Landscape Design" (Dumbarton Oaks Series in the History of Landscape Architecture- this is a subsidiary of Harvard Press)

While this book may only sell in the "hundreds", it is my first and I feel a sense of accomplishment that it is attached to something scholarly

for those of you bored stiff and looking for a something to do, this address should take you to the exact page of my photo

http://books.google.com/books?http://bo ... #PPA364,M1

an old fashioned "yeeehaw!"

Nick

oh poo seems the address doesn't work- somehow it abbreviated itself !

http://books.google.com/books?id=cvMNFO ... #PPA364,M1

ok here it is

Nick

Very cool beans, Nicolas D. Doten.

Excellent work, Nick. Congratulations!

One of my photos (of the Village Vanguard jazz club) was recently published in a travel magazine from Columbia, so unfortunately I can't read the article. They did a very crappy job and blurred the photo.

Congrats Kelly !

it is a bit of a rush (dating myself with that phrase aren't I?) to see anything you did published. Have had several articles I've written in a variety of "small" market papers etc but this photo was a first for me ! LOL after 25 years with a camera in my hands. Now for the next 25 right?

Thanks for allowing me to bore you all with this

Nick

PS is the first time the one you remember most fondly? <tongue in cheek>

hmmmmmm...... I wasn't aware they awarded a pulitzer for that !

Nice work, Nick!

I doubt Joe will win a Pulitzer for it, but here's a picture he took off of our balcony a couple of weeks ago, after the first snowfall of winter:

http://www.devsite.org/private/dec08-tr ... _small.jpg

I tried using the Img tag to embed it, but SQL barfed. This is overlooking the Truckee River in Reno; we have a nice apartment.

After five years without an SLR my wife insisted on getting a better digital camera and we are now the proud owners of a Nikon D-90 with 18-105 zoom lens. The metering is practically telepathic, the vibration canceling lets me take sharp pictures at 1/6s and I am in lust with the auto-ISO mode. Some curious omissions for a camera that has features including selection of background music for picture review though: I would dearly have loved a display of the depth of field range or even a way to set it (my old Canon EOS had such a mode), and why no bluetooth (although it will take wifi-capable memory cards)?

Sakeneko- wonderful winter photo- your hubby hid the houses on the skyline well and the reddish color of the bushes in the mid photo add some warmth to the scene- an excellent photo !!- oops was playing instructor (again) !

you'll have to print this one and frame it !!

Peter- the omission of anything regarding the f/stops is a glaring error !! controlling depth of field is integral in many cases to making good photos! yep even knowing what the camera set itself at would have been welcome- anyone know if the nikon D60 has the same problem?

I'm planning a digital (10mp or better)SLR purchase in the near furure and am beginning the necessary research regarding this ! also want to be able to shoot fully manually !!! including focus- hate surprises

Nick - sure it displays the aperture and everything else (except focus distance); I want it to tell me what the near and far limits of depth of field are, since it must know where it's focused. The DOF preview mode isn't as precise as I'd like. It does have a fully manual mode, BTW.

FWIW, I don't think one camera in ten does such a thing. None of those I've owned do.

Several have had a button or lever to force the aperture closed and preview the DOF the camera would see on the shot that's set, but I never found it very useful.