Out with the Old, In with the New

Sadly, I retired my first dSLR last week. I sold it to someone looking for a fast camera for shooting sports -- still a very good use for it. Here's the last good shot I made with my D1H -- it served me very well for over two years, even if it was a generation or two behind the current times when I purchased it.


But the good news -- to replace it, I got a used and somewhat-abused, but still functional D200. I'm the type of person who likes to actually use their equipment, not admire it sitting on a shelf. So, when the opportunity to save some cash arose by grabbing a D200 with some cosmetic issues (after taking a bit of a plunge off a tripod), naturally I'm going to be interested. Unless the camera doesn't work, I don't really care if it's not in mint condition. Same thing for my lenses. I'm sure I was a photojournalist in a former life or something...

By finding this deal, too, though, I was able to purchase a new lens along with the camera, for about the same price as what D200 bodies alone are going for nowadays. The lens I got is a 35mm f/2 AF-D. It's honestly one lens that I didn't think that I needed, but when I was looking through the viewfinder with the lens, I noticed that it seemed to match the normal viewing perspective. This makes sense when you think about it -- a 35mm lens on a 1.5x digital SLR becomes roughly a 5omm lens on a full-frame or film camera. So, yeah, after never really owning a 5omm when I shot film, I now have the equivalent of 50mm f/2 in digital.

And I'm recognizing how awesome this can be.

I already have a 20-35mm f/2.8 lens, but that sucker is huge. This small, compact lens gives me an extra stop, too, over that lens. It's wide enough to get a lot of stuff in, but not so wide that everything gets distorted. It's really a versatile little lens.

But the thing that I REALLY like about it is that it focuses very, very closely. I'd need to look up the stats, but I'm guessing it's about 3 inches in front of the lens. Combine that with the low-DOF f/2 opening, and it makes for a PERFECT lens for me to do my "Group F/1" stuff...





I love the bokeh! And the "Vivid Enhanced" setting on the D200 is really really nice.

In addition to being a great macro lens, it's also great as a portrait lens. Again, it's wide enough to get a decent head/shoulders portrait without having the distortion of an extra-wide when you get close to shoot the head & shoulders.

When I bought my D2H, I debated long and hard over whether or not to get the D200 instead. I ultimately decided that I preferred the machine-gun speed over the higher resolution. Especially since the D200 had 10 megapixels -- more than I really need. But now, I've decided that in shooting weddings more and more, I need all the resolution I can get. So, I've complemented my D2H with a D200.

Both of them are, really, more camera than I can use. Maybe in 2-3 years, I'll upgrade to a D3 and a D300, but for now I'm set...

The Peak of Autumn...

From my Fall 2007 Gallery

Autumn Porthole, Nisqually Wildlife Refuge, Revisited...

Last year, I took the family for a walk through the Nisqually Wildlife Refuge to shoot some pictures of the autumn leaves. Last Friday, I took my son back through, since he had the day off from school and it was my time to stay home with him. I remembered a certain tree near the entrance of the path that I shot last year, and I wanted to see what the foliage looked like this year. Here's the shot from last year:



Of course, I post-processed that image rather heavily -- too heavily for my tastes now. So, I wanted to shoot it again this year. Here's a couple of shots of that tree as it stands this year:





Hmm, looking at the picture from last year, which was taken about two weeks later than the pictures I took this year, I'm not as convinced the leaves have turned later this year at all. Interestingly, too, the blackberry brambles seem to really be taking over this tree. I shot these bottom ones with my 55-200 VR lens attached to my D1H (the D2H was occupied with the 400mm f/3.5). I'm still amazed that camera works as well as it does.

Indoor Supertelephoto Portrait

I suppose some people wouldn't call a 300mm f/2.8 a "supertelephoto" per se, but considering its size with lens hood attached, I sure do.

Since my D1H was handy, I slapped on the new-to-me Tokina 300mm f/2.8 that I bought yesterday from the same person I bought the 400mm from. It focuses MUCH closer (8 ft. vs. 14 ft.) and I was able to take the opportunity to grab a quick portrait of my son, cranking the ISO to 1600 and shooting wide open (and removed some of the noise in Neat Image). I had 1/500th at f/2.8, and this lens is a lot more hand-holdable than my 400mm, so I was able to shoot this with only the 15-watt compact flourescent my son was looking into as the light source. Fortunately, he was as willing as always to pose. I just wish he'd follow directions that well when I wasn't taking pictures...