John Crowe

I used to take my DSLRs without auto cleaning for cleaning by a retailer every two years. It is very affordable and vastly more effective than what I could achieve. Every two years worked perfectly, and I do a lot of lens changing.

I shot film from 1983-2007. I primarily shot fine grain (ultra slow) transparencies and negatives. With 35mm I would only bracket under challenging light situations. With 6x6 and 4x5 I was much more careful. If you have a digital camera it would help a lot in identifying the correct settings.

D850 is the logical choice. It will compete for at least five more years, even longer!

No one does standard studio camera testing like they do. Will be greatly missed.

I bought a used Nikon DCS PRO SLRn in 2008. I became familiar with it since my pro friend had one. While it was insanely expensive new, it was the most affordable way of me getting a full frame at the time. The D1 had just come out and the 1Ds, still commanded four or five times what I paid. Part of the reason I believe it was so affordable was that it was already being demolished on the internet for it's aliasing problem. It was completely overblown and one of the major reasons I think Kodak abandoned any further development. Today manufacturers are not afraid of a bit of aliasing and are willing to accept it to gain resolution.

Some have assumed you have the 70-300 L IS lens. However you did not type "L" in your description. Can you clarify which, there is a huge difference. I would not put a third party teleconverter on the non-L. The L would be very similar to the 70-200 IS L with 1.4x, but the non-L would be much much worse. While the 1.4x would have nominal effect on the 70-200, it would not deliver a significant difference either. I would be more inclined to go with the EF 2x II or III. I just upgraded from the original to the II, and it was worthwhile. The III is supposed to be a bit better. The Kenko 300 Pro 1.4x DG that I have is not as good as the original EF 1.4x that I had. The EF 1.4x III that I now have is better than the original. I am using the teleconverters on a 70-200/4 L and 300/2.8 L. I used them on the 300/4 L in the past. For fine detail the 70-200/2.8 and EF 2x won't stand up as well, but for general picture taking, until you can afford something longer, I think you will be pleased. When you can stop down one additional stop to regain some of that lost detail. P.S. My only concern depending on what camera you use, is how the AF may be affected by the 2x. For general photos I find the reduced AF to be acceptable. For some motorsports photography it is not fast enough, again on my particularly slow camera.

I considered a return to 120 film a couple of years ago but in my rural location the cost of film, processing and shipping was too prohibitive. Instead I added two medium format lenses that allow me to shift and stitch using a shift adapter on my 5DSR. Shifting and stitching with a 17 TS-E made selling my 6x6 and 4x5, twelve years ago, more palatable. Medium format lenses are much sharper than we were lead to believe in the 80's, and work extremely well on the 5DSR. The adapters are relatively expensive so choose which lens system you want to proceed with, if you decide to try this. I am achieving equivalent files to an 85-225 MP sensor and the results are superior to 6x6 Velvia 50 and likely quite close to 4x5 Velvia 50.

I do a lot of focus stacking including waterfalls and the most effective way is to shoot with no wind. I know this is very tough. It has just occurred to me that perhaps it may be possible through multiple images with multiple focus and multiple shutter speeds it may be possible to clone in the offending leaves in post processing.

Don't even consider the Leica. A 45, 50, or 60 MP, FF will be far superior and far cheaper. For that kind of money, and an interest in Hasselblad lenses PhaseOne, or Hasselblad, is the only way to go. Here the Leica is overrated. The GFX series is not under-rated at all from my research. It is a highly successful system. It is priced well for an albeit slightly smaller MF. It's just that through shifting/stitching using MF lenses and TS-E lenses, I can achieve the same, or better, results with my 50 MP FF. I have often shot APS-C alongside FF, so I can see the possibility of shooting M4/3 and MF, but FF does still offer more flexibility. P.S. I guess if you wanted to research under rated MF it would be the Pentax or Mamiya systems. I certainly do not see them discussed much. However, whether they are under rated, or just poor, I do not know. The same can be said of all the older used Leaf and PhaseOne systems.

Unfortunately the 600/4.5 is not an L, even though it is white. My research over the years has always pointed to the 500/4.5 L being vastly superior.

You can easily cut out the baffle on the mount to use the 1.4x-A. Just do it in a manner that the filings don't go into the lens and then vacuum them out. FDn does not have the baffle.

I had the Canon FD 400mm f4.5 SSC and used it on my T-90. It is one of the most unappreciated lenses along with the FD 80-200mm f4 L. The two 400/4.5 lenses are identical and mine was very sharp and contrasty. I remember my disbelief when I realized it was very significantly sharper than my FD 200/2.8. Yes, the internal focusing was brilliant, as I had had the non-IF 200/2.8 for a good 12 years before adding the 400. I quickly cut the baffle from the rear so I could use it with the 1.4x-A. It performed very well with the 1.4x-A too. Eventually replaced it with the 300/2.8 Fluorite which was awkward for my kids' sports since it lacked IF, but upgraded pretty quickly to the FD 400/2.8 L. For motor racing I used the 400/4.5 with the 1.4x-A, then upgraded to the 300/2.8 and 2x, but did not see a truly significant improvement, until the 400/2.8. These are all long gone, but I have since acquired the FD 800mm f5.6 L which is superb on the 5DSR, and I believe pretty much equal to the 400/2.8 and 2x. That says a lot for the 400/2.8. The 400/4.5 had at least one UD element and Canon simply did not do quite enough to give it the red line. If you can convert NIkon lenses easily the 400/5.6 ED is still likely more money, and the 400/3.5 ED would be about double, as would be the 600/5.6 ED. I had replaced my FD 400/2.8 L with the NIkon 400/2.8 ED AI-s, so I know these are all exceptional lenses too. I rented a Tamron 500/8 once for motor racing and it worked brilliantly well and responded well to the particular backgrounds I was faced with. Above you can see the effect of out of focus busy backgrounds, and they are very slow indeed.

The 17 TS-E will flare with the sun towards an edge or corner, but it is usually so well controlled I simply clone them out. Definitely need to keep the front element clean! I just use my hand for a shade too.

It was the only camera with a built in motordrive and battery grip. I loved using rechargeable alkalines for 20 years! The 4.5 fps was quick for it's day, although I doubt I ever used it. The shutter speed wheel was brilliant and a game changer, and pretty much adopted by every camera now. The viewfinder information was complete and well laid out. The A1 was just not as good. I doubt I ever used all the programs but that top LCD was also a game changer for making quick settings easily. Again, You will find one on pretty much all of todays cameras. I had to set it up once for a friend who knew nothing about cameras. I set it up with a program and the aperture safety shift and he was good to go. Sort of a "photography for dummies" camera! It got me through the whole AF fad of the 90's!

I loved my New FD 17mm f4. I tend to avoid flare, so I don't remember it being a particular problem. I should have some sunrise/sunset shots, so will check. I chose it over the FL 19mm for ease of use on the T90, and the extra 2mm.