The Spider Web

One of the things I really just don't enjoy doing is networking. Unfortunately, in our modern "connected world, it's not only a reality, we're pretty much at it's mercy.....that is if we want our computing devices to run well! For the most part, our little household has been running pretty darned well despite the large number of devices on the little network.

 

In fact, the little D-Link router/access point/switch has been plugging away in the networking cabinet for nearly 8 years now without drama of any sort. I originally went with this brand and model because it was one of the APs out there that used the Atheros "SuperG" chip that when paired with a laptop with matching chips could run  at 108mps vs. the standard 54mps of the standard "G". It handled the Wi-Fi as well as the wired parts of "Stanet" without hiccups for all this time, and I tend to be very loyal to the brands that work well for me, so over time I added a whole list of D-Link networking products (including an identical model at my brother/sister-in-law's).

That would include the DIR-615 when mine and my wife's laptops came along with "N" Wi-Fi capabilities, a well as the need for multiple networking connections in our living room area to accommodate not only the HTPC, but the Blu-Ray player, and Wii.

Around that time, it became obvious that I didn't have enough connections in the office either. I brought up the WHS file server which needed two ports, then a motherboard change on my workstation allowed it to have two as well, the two networked printer had to have their own and it was clear that the office needed an 8-Port switch. The thing that pushed it all over the edge was the client machine(s) that needed their own connection(s) to do updates after reloading. So, in came the D-Link DES-1108 to which was connected a separate DI-624 (the in-law's old one after they went with AT&T U-Verse) to handle those ports. There's also a 4-Port DSS-5+ that handles the printers as well.

Everything percolated along pretty well right up until this thing came along: the Nettalk-Duo. You've heard of Majic-Jack voice-over-IP phone service, right? This is a more advanced product that doesn't require a computer to be on. It's designed to attach directly to a router. So, here's how this came about: we haven't had a "landline" since before the year 2000. These days, we have a child who comes home before we do, so we want him to call us when he gets here AND we are not parents who are going to give an 8-year old a cellphone! Unfortunately, this device doesn't like my "long-in-the-tooth" router. Hmmmm...

This is the item that ends up pushing "Stanet" to the next logical stage: Gigagit networking. Virtually all my desktop/HTPCs have built-in Gigabit LAN anyway and with 5e Ethernet in the walls, all that's missing is the 1000mps switching function. I picked up the D-Link DGL-4100 router a few months ago which had Gigabit, then added the 8-Port DGS-2208 switch that now handles all the network traffic. With a second one on the way for the office, and the move of the DGS-5g from the office printers to the living room entertainment section, the entire "backbone" will now be Gigabit! This allows the Nettalk Duo to work and everything (particularly the digital media to and from the HTPC) to move across the network MUCH faster. An added benefit is that now I have the kids on a separate "SuperG" DI-624 AP that I can turn on and off "at will", while momma and I are on a completely isolated "N" router.

And of course, all of the devices (with the exception of the DIR-615) were bought used on eBay or Craig's List. It seems that networking devices don't hold there value very well! :)

Great Deal (Part 2): Lenses

One of the main draws of using single lens reflex cameras is that the vast majority of them were designed to have interchangeable lenses. Over their existence, the array of these lenses has been astounding, not just in terms of varied focal lengths, but types as well. However, they all still required a person to focus the image which could be difficult at times. By the late 70's, manufactures were seriously developing a number of systems that would autofocus the lens. These ranged from the Konica C35 "point and shoot" to the Polaroid SX-70 that used a variation of sonar! In 1981 Pentax was the first "out the gate" with a system for 35mm SLRs which used a built-in IR rangefinder fitted to an adapted ME, and called it the ME-F. Nikon followed in 1983 with the F3AF, but this, like the Pentax was a lens based system, slow, bulky and just not very workable.
In 1985 though, Minolta came out with an "integrated" system where the electronics and mechanism were largely in the body of the camera. This was the Maxxum 7000 (Dynax in some markets), and it completely changed the SLR industry. Nikon followed quickly with its own body integrated system and in 1992 Canon brought out a lens motorized system on a new mount called the EOS.
At that point, the changeover to autofocus for SLRs was pretty much complete. So for most manufacturers, there have been autofocus lenses in the market for the better part of 25 years. That adds up to a lot of glass floating around out there in the used market. For the first 15 of those 25 years, it was autofocus lenses made for 35mm film cameras. The bulk of digital camera makers made their sensor sizes right around APS-C with gives the equivalent focal length about a 50% boost. Of course, this is a double edge sword in that it's great on the long end of things, but is a wide angle killer on the other end! All those 80-200mm zooms are suddenly now 120-300mm, but then those 28mm lenses are basically 42mm "normal" lens!
Then how do you take advantage of all that old glass out there? Well, you start with the new! The best deal in the market is the kit zoom that most camera are packaged! Every single camera maker has an inexpensive, yet eminently competent lens that they often include as a starter for their basic offerings. Overwhelmingly, they tend to be 18-55mm, but on occasion you'll come across one that's 18-70mm. That's equivalent to about a 28-82mm or 28-105mm, and it's a good starting point. True, these things typically aren't optically stellar, and their build quality is; shall we say....utilitarian? However, they are commonly thrown in to the deal, and even if you have to buy one, you can't beat the price since they usually sell for less than $100.
OK, let's just say that you're able to score a really good deal and are able to land one of these kit zooms along with your $200-300, 6 Mp camera. Where do you go from here? To me, a great first purchase would be either a 55-200mm or a 70-300mm, so let's examine them.
The 55-200mm (or there-abouts) is a common focal length that manufacturers like to sell as a matching "first upgrade" lens. Virtually all major manufacturers have them and they are even sold at Wal-mart if that tells you anything. On the used market, they can often be found not much above $100 since they typically sold for less than $200-250 new. The APS-C conversion puts them at a 35mm eq. of 300mm on the long end which makes for a pretty nice soccer lens. They are generally also very compact and designed to have the same filter ring size as the kit zoom. So between the two lenses and a camera, you can go from an eq. of 28mm out to 300mm for less than $400.
However, when you delve into the older "non-digital" glass, that's when sharp-eyed buyers can get really nice deals. We'll start with the 70-300mm zoom, which were very common back 20-25 years ago. They were not only made by the OEMs, but by virtually every third-party lens company as well. On top of that, they were commonly rebranded by importers such as Promaster, Vivitar as well the Ritz camera store chain as their house brand, Quantaray. The Tamron 70-300/f4.5-5.6 was so common that it could be considered a generic of the type. I've seen them sell for less than $50, but more typically between $60 and $80. This is a lens that will give an equivilent zoom range that begins at 105mm and goes out to a whopping 450mm!
While those sound great and in fact are excellent deals, there's another often overlooked lens that can put a budding photographer in another class. And that's the old "normal" lens. REALLY!!! 25 years ago, camera manufacturers were still in the old 35mm mindset and along with that was the old "normal" lens standby that was virtually thrown in to every deal. So there's a lot of 50mm/f1.8s floating around out there and if you are OK to do you own focusing you can get them even cheaper than the $100 it'll costs to buy one of the autofocus versions.
Beyond, this there's a whole world of manual focus lenses that nobody wants (as long as you stay away from collector's lenses). They also have the tendency to perform better than anyone has the right to expect given the price since the smaller sensor'd cameras only use the middle of the glass and thus eliminating the age-old bugaboo of budget glass....edge performance. We're talking about lenses going back to the '60s! Sure, you'll have to manually focus, check to make sure that it'll mount on your camera w/o damage, and maybe even calculate exposure manually, but then what's that compared to what you can find out there for a few dollars. The literally thousands of 400/500mm Japanese "pre-set" lens that are available for less than $50. Throw a cheap 2x convertor on these and you have a converted focal length upwards of 1500mm! Take you kid outside and shoot some cool moon-phase pictures. Cut down an old broken gunstock, build a mount and go shoot pictures of wild animals. There are also lots of faster (f2.8) 20/24mm wide-angles that although convert to 30/36mm, are much faster than the kit zooms. They can make great party or indoor "event" photography lenses. For the use of old lenses like these, Nikon and Pentax are probably the most well known, but lots of people use the Sony/Konica-Minolta and even Canon with an adapter since they abandoned their old mount when shifting to auto-focus.
So, lets say that you this sounds interesting and bite on this idea. What do the dollar figures look like? Let's make some middle of the road assumptions and say that you paid $250 for the older DSLR camera with a "kit" lens thrown in, then pick up a 70-300mm zoom for about $75, then a 50mm "normal" for another $100. This all adds up to a pretty complete system for $425 that covers a 35mm converted focal length of 28mm out to 450mm, AND a low light f1.8 lens that the camera sees as 75mm that's perfect for available light portraiture. That's pretty amazing! Especially since that total won't even buy a the lowest-end camera with the kit lens, new from Wal-mart or Target. I've seen compact-sensor, point and shoot cameras that cost this much.

Great Deal: The 6 Megapixel DSLR

In the later half of 2003, a huge shift occurred in the photography world. Although Single Lens Reflex cameras equipped with digital sensors had been around for some time, going all the way back to midway through 1990s. They were unwieldy, expensive and didn't have enough resolution to pose a threat to film. And although the Nikon D1 of 1999 with it's 2.7 Mp sensor was the killer hardware for professional photojournalists, the $5500 price tag barely made a ripple in the consumer market. Then came the Canon Digital Rebel (300D)!
Most of you know that I'm not a Canon shooter, but I'm happy to give credit where credit is due. List priced at $899, this was the camera that kicked down the door that led to the world-wide consumers stampeded....along with the rest of the camera manufacturers that had the where-with-all to build a similar product. Nikon followed with the D70 in January of 2004 and the DSLR rush was on!
So, why then, with those cameras? Let's start from the beginning. Ever since the 1960s, the single lens reflex (more specifically Japanese SLRs) had dominated the photography scene. Virtually all serious photographers bought them, and those that didn't (serious or not) wanted one. When digital came along in the mid-to late 90's, it was obvious that, that was going to be the next big thing in photography, however, the sensors didn't give enough resolution for pictures to not look grainy and "pixelated" when blown up beyond snapshot (4x6) size and there was so much electronic "noise" in the image beyond ISO 400 that they were all but unusable.
However, between 2000 and 2003 a series of technologies converged to form the perfect storm of consumer market-dom! First, noise was conquered in larger APS-C format sensors which was the size first used in market-viable DSLRs. At the same time, manufacturers were able to get enough photo-sites onto them to get resolution up to 6 Mp, thus enabling prints blown up to 11x14 (and beyond) to be virtually indistinguishable from film! The third and main event was the breaking of the $1000 barrier which brought in the flood of consumers which has further driven the costs of production (and price of cameras) down through the magic of economies of scale! You take these advances, cram them into a cheaper to produce plastic body, get rid of a few expensive features; a seminal product is created!
At this stage of the game, everyone from serious amateurs to soccer-moms were snapping them up as fast as Canon and Nikon could build them. This led to pretty much every other manufacturer jumping into the pool. I'm not going to do a timeline here, but suffice to say that between 2003 and 2005, everyone from Pentax, Olympus to Konica/Minolta got something out into the sub-$1000 market-space. What does that mean to us......the frugal propellerheads of the world?
The fact is that to the "Average Joe" who just wants to shoot pictures of their kids growing up, family events and maybe even dabble in some artsy things like shooting the moon or wildflowers, 6 Mp is plenty. And these barrier-breaking cameras are now hitting the used market by the thousands! With entry-level replacements MSRPs at something south of $599, that puts fully functional used DSLRs in the sub-$300 range and I've seen them sell for close to $200 or less!
Think about this. Here's cameras which are all legitimately competent at virtually anything a normal person might ask of it. Give's the user the capability to access a virtually limitless treasury of lenses of every description, quite often for a "song", shoot pictures to your heart's content AND simply delete the non-keepers.....without the costs of film.....ALL AT THE PRICE OF A HALF-DECENT POINT-AND-SHOOT!!! That's just crazy! Is this a great country or what!?!

Which one should you consider? That's contingent on a few factors, the most important being what feels good in your hands and you like the interface the best. It's like the Mac vs. PC question. So here are my recommendations to look at and see what fits you the best:

• Canon Digital Rebel XT (300D) and XTi (350D)
• Nikon D70, D70s, D50, D40
• Olympus E500, E510, E520, E610, E620
• Pentax *ist D, *ist DS
• Konica/Minolta 5D
• Sony A100, A200 (first two models after Sony took over the Konica/Minolta line)

I chose these, because they are all at least 6 Mp, and can routinely be found in the $200-300 price range. All of them are systems that have been around for some time and therefore have sold quite a lot of cameras (with Nikon and Canon being far and away ahead of the others), lenses and other accessories. Some of them, such as Nikon and Pentax still use the same lens mount (with some modifications) going back to their film camera days thus allowing a user access to a huge inventory of glass, both OEM and after-market.
Which brings up the reasons for choosing one manufacturer over another:

• Feature set. Research, research and research. All of these cameras have ridiculously long lists of features, some useful, some not as much. Most have similar ones, others (like the Konica/Minolta sensor-shift), not as much.
• What do you like. Be a pest. If you have friends with any of these cameras, by all means ask them about it and see if you can take a few pictures with them. For instance; you may find that while most reviewers don't care for Canon's grip size/shape, that maybe with small hands, you are fine with it.
• Personal history. Does your dad have a bunch of old gear in a closet that you can have? Maybe there are several old Nikon or Pentax lenses that will work with your "new" camera and put you ahead of the game?
• Cast a wide net. After looking at the other factors, if it doesn't look like one is an overwhelming favorite, then create a list of all the ones that might work and find the best deal among them.
• Other factors. What else might you want to do with it in the future. It could be anything from underwater photography to astro-photography. Understand that the most popular (read common) models such as Canons and Nikons generally have had the most accessories made for them. This could range from something as common as dedicated flash units, to something as esoteric as telescope adapter mounts or macro-photography bellows units.

If you used to use SLRs back in the film days, the decision is a "no brainer". If you haven't and have been shooting pictures with a digital point and shoot, the difference in using a DSLR is astounding, almost indescribable. You'll wonder why it took you so long to do it. No, although $200 isn't inconsequential, the fact of the matter is that for a rather modest investment you can open yourself up to a whole new world.
Next time: how to collect important DSLR accessories, the Frugal Propellerhead way.

The "A" Team

Back in the old (I mean when I was a kid) days, "The A Team" was a highly successful TV show with George Peppard, Dirk Benedict and Mr. T. The show was about a band of "elite" services solders who had been wrongfully convicted of some crime and were now fugitives. This modern day band of Robin Hood wandered about helping people and trying to clear their name typically just one step ahead of "the law" trying to capture them. At the center of the mayhem was the ever present "plan". In fact, arguably, the most famous part of the show would be when toward the end of every episode, after a number of unexpected twists had occurred, but the goal had ultimately been accomplished, Col. John "Hannibal" Smith (George Peppard) would, take the cigar out of his mouth, grin and say: "I love it when a plan comes together"!
Yes, I know there's been a remake, but I'm a cranky old guy, so I'm going with the original....OK!?!

The part the pertains to me is of course the "unplanned" aspects of the situation which add drama, yet ultimately don't get in the way of the plan coming together. What that relates to of course is my previous post about "falling off the wagon" and picking up a Nikon D70s and 18-70mm lens that I had been coveting as an everyday shooter. Of course that was different from the "plastic-fantastic" (Nikon D50) that I wanted as my back-up camera/street-shooter/adverse conditions body.

So, here's what I have or have ended up with to fulfill my plan. A functioning Nikon D70s body (since I'm keeping the lens it came with). These are typically worth in the $150, give or take $25 either way. Cameras, especially in the lower-end/entry-level of the market tend to be worth more when packaged with a lens and ready to take pictures. So, a $125-150 body, plus a $25-35 lens with worth more than the sum of it's $150-185 total. A complete rig generally sells in the $250-300 price range. I know, crazy, right....why can't people just buy their own lens, put it on the camera and save the money? You have to remember the psychology of the buyer in this category. In all likelihood, they are new to either the digital end of the hobby or more typically, not certain they want to invest in the time and energy it takes to master a DSLR. These are intimidating pieces of equipment and to ask one of these folks to go out, research an appropriate lens, and purchase it to go on a body is usually a little too much. They'd much rather pay a $50-75 premium to buy it all put together.

Which brings me back to my situation. I have a camera body that I don't really want, but since I'm keeping the lens, I need a replacement for that. I have $150 invested in it. Going back to the early days of auto-focus, when it began to appear on 35mm film cameras, manufacturers made "kit" lens (both "original equipment" and "after-market") to go on them. This was after the "normal-zoom" revolution when the fixed 50mm "normal" lenses were replaced by either lenses ranging from 35-70mm to 28-80mm. On top of that, most people are unaware that the vast majority of them can be used just fine on modern DSLRs. This is thanks largely to marketing hype of everybody putting the word "digital" on the newer products to convince consumers to purchase the newer models. You add that to the confusion created by the smaller (DX/APS-C) used on most DSLRs; it creates a situation where there are hundreds of these perfectly useable older lenses for sale on eBay at ridiculously low prices. Which explains me picking up a Tamron 28-80mm/f3.5-5.6 for $27.

So, now I'm up to $177 invested. It needed a lens cap, a strap (which I have) and a charger. So I picked up generics of each last week adding $10, making the total now $187. The fact is that I'm a 100% certain that I can get at least that much from selling it locally as a "ready to shoot" package. A more likely price-point would actually be $225, even after discounting for the "hot pixel". So, ultimately, I'll end up not only getting the 18-70mm lens for "free", but making a little profit on the whole she-bang. That'll keep me on track to pick up the D50, "Plastic-Fantastic" at some point in the future.

Falling Off the Wagon!

Well; I did it. Went off the spending diet and bought something....well actually, four somethings! I've been researching a few items for some time. Two of them have been a backup camera and a general purpose lens that can also serve as"portrait" zoom . Last week, I found them.....both of them, all in one package.....kind of..... Anyway, there was an eBay listing from Portland, Oregon that had a Nikon 18-70mm/f3.5-4.5 lens that I've been wanting combined with a D70s camera that it was originally "kitted" with; listed for $150 BIN (Buy It Now). The lens alone has been selling for more than that on a regular basis. I know; I've been tracking them. The "fly in the ointment" was that the camera has a hot pixel, which shows up in red (at times) and leaves a bit of a trail (tiny red line extending down from it). The facts on this situation (other than the worth of the lens), is that completely non-working D70/D70s' often sell for nearly $100! So the gears started turning in my head. What if I added an inexpensive working lens and packaged it together as a system with a glitch? The probability is that it would sell for what I had in the whole she-bang....thus making the lens, free (or close to it)! So, I started looking.for a lens. 5 minutes later I came up with a Tamron 28-80mm lens selling for $27 (BIN, shipping included), and in the same search I found an Tamron 28-200mm lens with an auto-focusing issue for $15.50. Then I bought a 67mm Nikon NC filter for the new lens and I had well and truly fallen off the wagon and gotten run over by it!
OK, I'm exaggerating a little bit, since the facts are the I spent around $220 for, 1 camera, 3 lenses, and 1 filter. However when I came home yesterday from an all-day certification training (that was just a poke in the eye), it all looked much worse than it was since all 4 boxes had shown up at the same time and were piled up in the hallway!
So now, on to my rationale (or rationalization). No! It's not because that guy is threatening to break my face! For those who don't recognize him, he's Mike Holmes, the "Make It Right" guy and has several TV shows on HGTV. I love his show and on it, he's often seen shooting pictures of things done wrong as he inspects the houses. Although, the camera he uses is the devil's own, Canon, he has a short zoom mounted on it which is probably just the 18-55 kit lens that's sold with the camera. As i watched him use it on a weekly basis, it struck me as being very very slick handling and balanced for inside use. The converted focal length would be equivalent to about a 28-85mm on a 35mm camera. Although my 18-200mm super-zoom covers all that, it get a little heavy and unwieldy when you just need to grab a quick shot of the kids and/or the animals.
And this is something I really don't need. Kinda like getting out the shotgun to deal with a mouse in the house. Don't get me wrong, it's a great lens and the center of my arsenal, but just not the best for what I need most of the time. I've had this in the back of my mind for a long time. Of course there is the cheap 18-55mm kit lens that Nikon started selling with the introduction of the D50 which is really a pretty good performer, but with a Nikon conversion factor of 1.5x (vs. Canon's 1.6x), it only goes 27-82mm which is a little short of the other job I had for it.....a portrait lens.

Enter the Nikon 18-70mm/f3.5-4.5. This lens came into being as a "kit" lens as well, but one with a twist. It had "mid-line" build and optical quality! At a 35mm converted focal length of 27- 105mm, it's not only a great "grab the shot", quick-handling lens, but a nice portrait lens as well. Plus it has the added benefit of having a slightly brighter and shallower depth of field f4.5 at the long end vs. the 18-200mm which is already f5.6 at that focal lenght. It's not "VR" like the 18-200, but if you can't hold 105mm steady, you have no business shooting a DSLR!

As you can see, it doesn't extend anywhere near the length of the 18-200mm! As I've already confirmed as soon as I put it on the camera, the balance and handling of my D300 has completely changed.

It doesn't even tip over when I have the MB-D10 battery grip attached, lifting the whole assembly 1.5-2 inches higher. The construction of this lens is also very impressive as you can see by the Nikon diagram below.
Here's a comparison picture so you can get a better sense of the difference between the two lenses.

This lens really is a very good deal even if I had paid the full-pop $150-170 that they sell for. Instead of the VERY plasticy feel of the 18-55mm, you get much better construction with a steel mounting plate. Although that isn't a deal breaker for me, I don't like my primary lenses that I intend on using a lot to be built that way. The price is disproportionately low due to the fact that there are so many of them out there since they were often included in a "kit" with the D70, D70s, D80 and even the D200. In my case, I got the lens for a good price, plus got the D70s essentailly thrown in for free!

Now, if I can get what I hope for out of the D70s (with a hot pixel) and the Tamron lenses, I might even end up with a profit on my hands and possibly partially paying for my true target for a backup camera. The lighter and more compact, D50!

The Plastic-Fantastic!

In my last post, I touched on a "back-up" camera to the D300 (Holy Grail) that I bought last year, and have continued to give the idea more serious thought as well as quite a bit more research. I had also come to the conclusion that the best fit for me out of the cast of characters (Nikon D70, D70s, D50, D40), and the D50 had kind of "won out".
In this post, let me elaborate on this choice as well as another thought......a lens......go figure, right!?! Basically without slipping into "review" territory, let me just start with the important attributes about this particular Nikon model that has somehow separated it from the pack. First of all, it's significantly smaller than the D70/D70s bodies. The last post has an image of it right behind a D70 and it's quite marked. Below is a picture from the top which shows how much narrower it is.
I'm not saying that it's "pocketable", but when combined with the right lens (more on that later), this could present quite a bit less mass. So my search for something that's not as intimidating as my full on D300 rig with MB-D10 battery grip and 18-200mm super-zoom, for "street" photography could come to fruition. So, let's see; smaller, lighter, uses the same battery, can focus the same lenses. With the exception of it using the incompatible SD memory cards, this camera could be "IT"! After reading lots of reviews, I became even more convinced that this should probably be my target. One professional photographer/reviewer became so enamored of it, that he dubbed it the "Plastic-Fantastic"! The consensus of all the reviews was that although this camera was made of plastic, it didn't feel "plasticy", unlike the rival small Canons.

So, what has led me in this direction and away from the Olympus E-330 that I had discussed in previous posts? Here's the thing: most ALL advanced photographic systems are all about the glass. Ultimately, the vast majority of photographers who shoot SLRs (of any kind) will have more invested in their lenses then their camera bodies. And with the advent of the modern electronic-centric digital-SLR, this trend is even more pronounced. Quite often you'll even see high-end cameras displaced in the product line in as little as two years! It's simply not possible to constantly replace all of a collection of lenses. So, from a pragmatic standpoint, even if I bought an E-330 at a great price, then assembling enough lenses to make use of it would impede the acquisition of comparable Nikon glass that'd be useable in my main system as well. That just doesn't make good economic sense and I do teach that subject! Now, that doesn't mean I don't love the design of both the Olympus E-330 and Panasonic DMC GF-1 that I talked about in previous posts and won't at some future date try to pick one or both up when their prices have dropped more......but just not now. Yes, I know; it's a sad thing that we can't have everything that we want, but such is life!

So....how exactly does one turn a (relatively) compact DSLR like the D50 into some facsimile of a "street-shooter".....small, light, with some focal length flexibility? ....with the "plastic-fantastic" lens of course! As you can see from the picture above; that's not much of a lens. From it's plastic mount to it's plastic filter ring, it only measures 2.5". It weighs in at just a hair under 7oz. There's no aperture ring, so if you don't have a camera that's capable of electronically controlling the f-stops, then you're out of luck! It's actually a simplified version of the already cheap, 28-80mm/f3.5-5.6 kit lens that Nikon created to match their early low-end AF cameras (6 elements in 6 groups) which included a (then new) Hybrid aspherical element by bonding a polycarbonate (plastic) element with one of the glass ones. At the time, it was considered to be an adequate optical performer, but a pariah to traditional Nikonians for all the cost-cutting measures. However, this didn't deter the legions of consumers who now bought Nikon's inexpensive auto-focus cameras on which this lens was included as part of the "kit". The estimates of units produced vary, but it's most probably in the high- hundreds of thousands or millions, so finding one cheap is not much of a challenge!
The "undropped-shoes" on this is that, with modern, DX sized sensor digital camera, this lens is an amazing performer all out of proportion with it's size and cost (typically under $50)! When combined with the equally nice performing for the price (~ $150) D50, it makes a great inexpensive/compact combo, that would perform not only as a "street-shooter", take anywhere camera, but as a backup to my system as well. I know that the D40 is significantly smaller than the D50, but it doesn't have a screw-drive motor and uses a different battery as well.
As you can see from the above image, it's pretty darned compact and lightweight (26oz total) rig. My D300 with battery, but without lens weighs 32oz, by itself! That lens give a converted angle of view on a 35mm camera of roughly 42-120mm, giving it a nice "normal" to "portrait"-short telephoto range. All for a less than $200 with a little bit of judicious shopping!

Some of you might be wondering how this fits in with my "build quality" philosophy that I often point to? Of course, I still think and will probably always think that it's important, but it's also a relative concept of course. First of all; it's relative to what you can afford! Secondly, and I think, most importantly, the concept should be applied relative to the expected function of the product. More specifically; any "front-line" product that you'd expect to use regularly or in a high-leverage environment must be "top-notch". However, any device or product that's rarely used (like a back-up camera) must simply be functional. A good example is a home mechanic that only occasionally uses his tools: why would he run out and buy tens of thousands of dollars worth of professional grade Snap-On tools? In the case of this camera; it just needs to work at a decent level, be small enough to give me some functionality that the D300 does not.

Plastic-Fantastic indeed!

It's tough to be Frugal

It’s rough, but it's gotta be done. These days, I’m in a partially self-imposed austerity program. This is of course partially due to a lack of liquid assets, and partially due to just plain having too much stuff! However, that doesn’t mean I’m not on Craig’s List and eBay. In order to “stay in the game”, even when you aren't buying, you can’t afford to let knowledge about the market to slip. The other important factor is that the key of being frugal, is long-range planning! For me, that planning includes the growth in all three of my hobby areas. Today, I’ll discuss my photography “roadmap”.

I have for some time decided that I’d really like to develop in a several areas of photography. The first being in portraiture. To this end, I’d like to add one or more remotely controllable strobes, as well as the adapters, light stands, and modifiers necessary give me project flexibility. Ideally, that would be at least one more Speedlight which would give me a portable and powerful flash that’s compatible with the Nikon CLS system that I use. This would give me great flexibility in being able to set up multiple light sources in virtually any location at any time. In the same vein, I’d really like to have a relatively short zoom that would make a good balanced match on my D300. When shooting portraiture, I rarely if ever need the 18-200mm “do everything” super-zoom, and I just think that a smaller range lens is a better physical fit on my camera, especially when I’m not using it without the battery grip. Another eventual photographic target would be a “super-wide”, which would be something in the 24mm (35mm equivelant) range, that would give me the ability to set up and shoot interiors. I’ve been interested in lighting and shooting architectural interiors for some time. Maybe I might even be able to turn that into a business opportunity with real estate at some point in the future. Which brings up another item that would probably become a “need” down the road. For my own needs, not having a backup isn’t an issue, but when you are being paid by others for a specific job, non-performance due to equipment failure isn’t really acceptable, which means that there’ll probably need to be a “backup” camera at some point in the future.

This time of budgetary frugality where I’m just planning and not buying anything can be critical in helping me get the equipment that I need/want without make costly mistakes. So let’s look at the areas of future need and what I might want to keep tabs on now.

Lenses: Basically, I need something in the medium, norm-short telephoto range for a primary portraiture lens. Of course the most obvious would be to get into something with a nice wide aperture like f2.8, however after looking into it, I found that you can get more than adequate background blur by using f4 which bring the much more common f3.5 maximum aperture lenses into play. This one change alters the cost landscape by dropping the price by $200 or more. Typically the most flattering focal length used for this type of photography runs in the 75-105mm range which for a DX camera like mine comes out to be 50-70mm after the 1.5x conversion factor. In that case, there are a number of nice old Nikon lenses which are generally pretty inexpensive. In this group there is of course the 28-80mm that Nikon began producing in mass almost as soon as they started making auto-focus film cameras. There are of course others such as the 35-70/35-80mm range as well. These are full-on consumer lens, while-functionally and optically adequate, are often lacking somewhat in build quality, typically having lightweight plastic barrels as well as mounts. That being said, they can often be had for a song…down to the sub-$50 range. One factor for me though, is that I find myself increasingly using the wider focal lengths while shooting portraits and those lenses have ranges that translate to having starting points of 42mm and 52mm converted focal length respectively. Which brings us to the 18-70mm Nikon AF-S. This lens converts to a neat 27-105mm focal length that covers what I’d want to do very well. Plus this lens is considered to be optically very good, a mid-line lens with a metal mount AND was made in relatively large numbers since it was a “kit” lens often included with the D70, D70s and some D200s. This brings the typical price to be somewhere in the palatable $135-150 range. So why not theinexpensive and optically decent 18-55mm? Not much cheaper at around $100, plus hate the “cheap” feel of the build and on top of that, the 18-70mm is thought to be significantly superior on the optical front.

Now the "wide" lens. A long-standing buggaboo for DX cameras due to the smaller than 35mm sensor creates a 1.5x conversion factor often turning a very nice and wide optical formula into something "mid-range"! My widest lens goes down to 18mm (27mm converted) which isn't very wide to start with and at that setting comes with a VERY complex "mustache" shaped distortion as well. What I'd really like to be able to have to shoot indoors or covering large groups is something in the old 24mm range as related to 35mm film cameras. This is fairly wide without introducing a lot of distortion. Nikon makes such a lens, however it sells for a hefty $1000 + or -, used! Luckily, this is an area that all the independent manufacturers out there have had a lot of experience designing in and there are lots of choices. After quite a bit of internet research, I've found that all of the "big three" (Sigma, Tamron & Tokina) have well thought of lenses in this category, and the best balance of optical quality, cost and build is generally acknowledged to be the Tokina 12-24mm/f4. They tend to sell in the $325 to 425 range, but sometimes can be had for slightly less.

Most of the lens research is done and all that really needs to happen is for me to monitor it over time so I can detect trends and be able to differentiate any anomalies. Next on the agenda is the flash. Nikon has 4 flashes that are compatible with their Creative Lighting System (CLS): the current SB-900, SB-700 and the older SB-800, SB-600. They are all great and love the SB-600 that I've had for a couple of years now. Although, I have an old SB-26 with the built-in optical trigger, it's not CLS capable and therefore not directly controllable from the master. And although, the SB-600 has been a revelation, it can't be a "master", nor is it as powerful as the 800/900 strobes. Obviously, since the SB-900 is the newest and biggest, it's also the most expensive. Which leave the SB-800. This is one powerful and flexible flash! If you have any doubts; do yourself a favor, go over to YouTube and watch some of the Joe McNally videos on what can be done with these things. I've found that they routinely sell for $300+, so clearly I'm going to need to find a "deal" or save lots of money!

Which brings us to the last item: the back-up camera. As a back-up, there are certain criteria that it needs to meet. The main one that causes a difficult decision is whether or not you want it to be part your "system". I've decided the answer is YES and in my case, that's Nikon, CLS, and possibly "screw-drive" capability so it can function with the older non-AF-S Nikon lenses (of which I have 2). Of course ideally, a "back-up" should be identical or as much like your primary camera as possible. But obviously, I'm not in a position to buy another D300, or even a D200, nor could I see myself being able to rationalize it in my wildest dreams! This leaves the D70s, D70, D50 and D40. You guys that read this blog on a regular basis already know that I've owned both the D70 and D70s and liked them a lot, so those could be considered no brainers, especially given that they can take the same lenses (screw-drive), flashes (CLS), batteries as well as memory cards as the D300. Unfortunately, there's a downside to them......in that they are virtually identical in size to the D300.....although quite a bit lighter. Of all the candidates, the D40, is by far the smallest, lightest, and the newest (read: most advanced). There are downsides though: that small size and light weight comes at a price, which is the missing screw-drive motor and by extension an inability to focus older lenses. It also takes a different battery as well as SD memory cards instead of the CF cards of the D70/D200/D300. Then there's the D50. Essentially, it's a slightly more modern (but de-featured) D70, which is both smaller and ligthter, but as a consequence, uses the SD memory card as well. On the plus side though, it does have the screw-drive focusing motor and will take the EN-EL3e that the D300 uses. My research has shown that it typically sells in a similar range as the D70 so there's not much to give there. This price point seems to run in the $150 to 200 area so it's a good candidate from a budgetary standpoint.

My reality is that, at the moment, I can't spend much money, but I can plan, plot and watch. So when the time comes, I can pounce!