Joe

FWIW, f/2 is a full stop faster than f/2.8 and therefore a whole doubling of the amount of light admitted to the sensor.

I picked up the D1X last summer. Amazing how the prices of bodies deteriorate...when the D1X was new (circa 2001) it retailed for $8,000; I picked mine up for $300. Very nice body, though I wish it had interchangeable viewfinders like the F5 did. Ever since I bought a Katz Eye screen, i've been much more open to buying older non-AF lenses. In fact, this week i'm probably going to be looking at picking up a 400/3.5. Nice heavy, metal lens. Doubles as a club if someone ever tries to jack it from you! I wouldn't trust those plastic mounts at all either, the 18-55 kit lens (that came with my D50 when I still had it) was a plastic mount. As someone who habitually picks cameras up from the lens, I could see a heavy mofo like a D1X or a gripped D200 breaking the mount off. edit: just for kicks, some D1X awesomeness:

Without a doubt.

Definitely not, these lenses are made to perform. :cool:

I shoot with both a D1X and a D200. The focus motor in the D1X has ungodly torque, it racks the focus from one end to another on any lens with considerable force. You're absolutely right about QC issues with Sigma. One of the main reasons why i'm very leery about buying from them...though their 30/1.4 intrigues me very much. On a photo forum I frequent there was a thread about the Sigma 50/1.4. A few fellas had to return a lens two or three times just to get a good copy. The 35/2 has a plastic body just like the 35/1.8. At least my later AF-D copy is (though I believe the original AF version was plastic as well). Nothing beats the old (n-)AI(-s) lenses though, all metal construction FTW.

Do you have the Nikkor 17-55/2.8 or one of the third-party versions? The Nikkor is impressive, I don't even like normal zooms and I think that's a damn-fine lens, hah.

That looks like a nice piece of kit. LOL The Nikkor 35/1.8 is an excellent lens. I bought a 35/2 (its FX cousin) only a few weeks before it came out; was kind of bummed that I didn't wait. AF-S and an ass-gasket, two things that I wish I had now. How's that Sigma 18-200 working for you? I've used a similar lens (think it was a Tamron 28-300) and i've noticed that the autofocus gets hokey at f/6.3. The practical limit for AF is f/5.6 in almost all phase-detect autofocus systems, even on the high-end cameras.

What system do you shoot with?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzirE5ULiwM

50mm is a bit long on digital; i'm not saying you can't use it, but you should definitely be aware of the field of view such a lens provides. IIRC, Canon makes a 35mm f/2. That would be a good lens with a very usable FOV.

New DSLRs with video capabilities are one of the few examples where a cheaper implementation [of video] has resulted in a more flexible application as well as a final product that is literally "just as good". A 5D Mk. II can shoot 1080p30 video and has been used to shoot an episode of House. Plus it can use the full line of Canon EF lenses...that's a major improvement over previous digital video cameras.

Plowing in CT was superb. Every road in East Haven was plowed, even the little bullshit dead-end streets. No snow on the pavement, how luxurious.

Nevertheless, they should have Tony's photo in the dictionary under the word "motorman".

The Nikkor 55-200mm DX lens is a fine choice, I owned it for a time myself. That Tamron is...well, it's not good, we'll put it that way. Telephoto lenses in the subway are an art to themselves, a lens with VR would be very handy.

I didn't think you were talking about the shoe difference; the way you worded it seemed as if they couldn't handle the voltage.

An M8 can't handle 750VDC on the third rail? Interesting...

Next total solar eclipse is 13 November 2012; next annular eclipse is 20 May 2012.

It's about time someone posts some actual music in this thread.

Eh, not really. I've done complete cleans of systems without formatting the disk and starting over. Usually it's just a lot easier to wipe the disk though. It's just not always feasible.

Don't get caught up in the whole megapixel myth. It's not the megapixels that's important...it's the pixel density. Pixel density = megapixels per square millimeter. Ridiculously high pixel densities only degrade image quality. Imagine two devices; both have 5 megapixel sensors. Device #1 has a sensor of pixel density 5MP/mm². Now imagine device #2 has a sensor of PD 2.5MP/mm². Device #2 has a lower pixel density...less pixels per square millimeter. Ceteris paribus, device #2 will have better resolution than #1 and therefore judgmentally better image quality.

Anything with high pixel density is bound to suck. I'll keep the mobile phone for snapshots and the real camera for photos.

simple & clean.

Keep this movin' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg-8O07NoP8&hd=1

640x960 for the three large iPhone screen dumps.