Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: seagrove01  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add seagrove01 to your Buddy List
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor

Review Date: Aug 16, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $200.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: small, lighweight, sharp, fast
none for me

I have been using this lens for a little while now and have been more than pleased with its performance and capability. While others may find some outer edge loss in sharpness or chromatic aberration, all I see is an image that works for me. I care very little about what test charts say and prefer to use it in the field to see if it works for me. This one is a nice attachment to my "vintage" D2H bodies and it has become my low light lens of choice for the street.

Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 AT-X 828 AF PRO

Review Date: Aug 16, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Build quality, sharpness, focus accuracy
weight but it is a f2.8 pro zoom

Don't remember what I paid for this lens but I purchased a Tokina 80-200mm f.28 twice, once with an Olympus mount and the second time when I shifted to Nikon. I have owned the latest acquisition for over a decade and it has never failed me. It is not the top of the line AF-S Nikkor but the performance has done me well in shooting high school sports. I have used Tokina top of the line equipment for almost three decades and have never had a problem.

Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124 AF PRO DX SD

Review Date: Aug 16, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Absolutely outstanding lens in my judgment! I have owned this lens since it first hit the streets and have used it for everything from newspaper work to weddings to personal. It is a solid performer in DX clothing. Absolutely stunning images out of my "vintage" D2H bodies. Brand new it costs half of what the [then] new Nikkor 12-24 f4 was costing.

Tokina 24-200mm AT-X 242 AF

Review Date: Dec 29, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Good fit and finish, decent sharpness/resolution/contrast

Wanted a lens that covered wide angle to telephoto when I went to the UK in 2003 with an Nikon F100. Shot nothing but Kodak Tri-X and had a ball. Went back to the UK in Nov 2004 using the Tokina w/Nikon D2H. Because of the lens factor (1.5x) I also took my Nikkor 18-35. Still used my Tokina about 85% of the time. Still very satisfied with the lens. Looking to buy the Tokina 12-24mm f4 when it hits the streets in Jan 2005.

Nikon D2Hs

Review Date: Dec 28, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $3,000.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: 8flps, construction,large LCD, fastest shutter release around, extreme battery life, ergonomics, (what everybody else says).

Love my D2H! Having never owned an F5, the 8fps is fantastic. The autofocus on the D2 and the ability to select patterns for what I am shooting at the time is great. Tracks extremely well on moving targets. For me and my style of shooting (both business (newspaper) and personal work is pj), I could not ask for a better camera. Sold both a D1 and D1H to buy this camera and would do it again. Would love to rate it as excellent but I always feel there is room for improvement.

Nikon D1H

Review Date: Dec 28, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,800.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Quick shutter, large (40 frames in JPEG) buffer, hi-speed flash synch.
Battery life

Purchased to take over as primary body with D1 as backup. ISO1600 shots a tremendous improvement over the D1. Large buffer for sequence shots (sports and nature action). Bulletproof body. 2.74 megapixel file size not a disadvantage. Have had shots of 1/3 of a frame blown up to 11x17 for advertising that look great. Sold the body after 6 months for $1,500 (along with the D1) to buy a D2H.

Nikon D1

Review Date: Dec 28, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,000.00 | Rating: 6 

Pros: 5fps, hi-speed flash synch, top-notch construction, large buffer.
Banding at ISO1600.

I, too, bought a D1 for freelance work after using a D100 owned by a weekly paper I contract to.Found the D1 to be an excellent camera at ISO800 and below. Have many shots at ISO200 that provide excellent color and resolution with very little, if any, noticeable noise. Having a camera at 5fps with a large bufffer was great for high school sports but horrible at ISO1600.