Friday, March 31, 2006

"BYELORUSSIAN PRESIDENT"

Lukashenko - bullet in the head or shotgun blast in the face now - lot cheaper than an invasion and a lot less blood shed than a revolution.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

dee too eks


I am allergic to film developer. It is something I discovered in school. I was allergic to most of the oils used in metal work as well. The latter did not matter; I never became a metal worker. I did become a professional photographer.

Part of the process was always denied to me, but I was happy with a Leitz projector and Kodachrome Professional.

I used to be a Canon fan. Then one day I sold my Canon FD system and went purist for a while. No lugging a bag of lenses around - just a rugged "compact". A Nikon compact - with a stunning 35mm lens. That and Kodachrome made me money.

Then, eventually, a long time after I got a job with far higher remuneration than your average professional photographer, I decided I missed the options of a decent 35mm SLR and lots of lenses. So I looked at the options: Leica is nice - in the same way as a Rolls Royce; love to have one, but not for everyday use. Contax - I have used professionally with loaned kit - very good, but not state of the art. Olympus - at the time had lost their way. Pentax - not for pros, not these days anyway, Yes, it was Canon or Nikon.

So I tried them out - top of the line. ASM, decent metering, mirror lock-up, depth-of-field preview. Both are good brands. Canon had a wider range of newer lenses. Nikon could use virtually anything with a Nikon mount. Nikon's MMI was more traditional - that is what swung it for me.

So I bought an F5. I have several lenses - the best are Nikon; the others are oddities not available in the Nikon range.

In the meantime I had discovered scanning and Photoshop. Kodachrome had given way to Royal Gold and Supra [negative film has a higher latitude than positive - and if you want it, you can get the slide "look" by manipulating curves]. I was finally in the "darkroom" - albeit digital.

However, something has now happened to "wet film". It is hard to get it developed well. The pros have mostly gone digital. A little while back I costed it out; a new scanner [Scan Elite 5400 II] and three years of film at my current low, amateur, usage versus a new D2x. Did not justify a D2x.

So I wait six months and Nikon annouces the D200 - at a compelling price even before it hits the streets and gets lowered. Time to go fully digital? It seems so. So courtesy of Grays [where else?] I have tried out the D200. Well it is lighter than the F5, and smaller, and almost as solid. It has a stunning imaging chip and all the on-board controls you could need [with the exception of vertical controls that you can get by adding the dual battery pack].

BUT

I don't like the viewfinder. I don't like the screen with the little AF boxes; I miss a proper eyecup; the titchy pentaprism seems too close to the lens [especially with a big, fast, "pukka" lens]. Don't believe everything you read in the press - try before you buy.

I want a D2x. I don't want to pay twice as much as a D200 for it*. I will consider a little more than the list price for a D200 with MBD200. If Nikon brings out the rumoured D3h and prices it between the D2x and the D200 I might just run to it - once the street price starts to bite. Bugger, 'cause I also want one now!

[*On this subject why does eBay continue allow so many scammers? - just ban email addresses inside postings and put these little shits out of business]