sunray1

I wouldn't know about tougness or durabilty but IMO the Df is much 'better' build than the other prosumer cameras in that the buttons and dials have a much nicer 'feel' to them. Also the shutter 'feels' and sounds quite different (better IMO) than a D750. It definitely feel less plastic and more 'quality' than a D750, despite it's light weight. I hink it's a very well build camera and never had any problem with the battery door. Enjoying the camera very much!

<p>Hi all,<br> Just picked up a working MH-16 from Marktplaats / Craiglist (thx Wouter!) and just spent an hour or so shooting. So everything is fine now and I'm fully aware about the age-related issues with these NuMH batteries.<br />I read some info about a procedure to break in new batteries and will try that. Now let's see if I can find some 1 or 2GB CF cards... It's all just for fun of course but so far I enjoy shooting with so much restrictions like battery life, number of shots, dynamic range, iso range etc. :-)</p>

Thx Wouter! For some reason I missed this listing on 'Marktplaats'. Made the seller an offer and keep my fingers crossed now! :-)

<p>Hello,<br> Recently I stumbled upon a D1X for a few bucks. The batteries didn't seem to charge with the MH-16 charger: the red charging light kept blinking and never went to the green 'End' light, so -still optimistically- I went out and scored the last two EN4 batteries at my local Calumet (15 dollars a piece), thinking it was just the old batteries that had died.<br> But... also with the new batteries I'm not able to charge them: the same thing happens, a blinking red charging light, even after more than 12 hours... So now I'm afraid I'm stuck with a dead charger.<br> Can anybody tell me what the blinking red charging light means? I can't seem to find any info on the MH-16 on the web...<br />Or does anybody know where I can buy a replacement charger (I'm in The Netherlands/Europe).<br> Thanks!<br> Ray</p>

<p>For land/cityscapes: 17-35 AF-S: for the sharpness, relatively small size, it's sharpness and the way it renders...<br> <br />Otherwise -like many apparently- the 35 1.4 Ai-s: for the unique way it renders and the joy of manual focusing a beautifully made lens</p>

I really like the 25-50 f4 Ai-s!

<p>Ok, thank you all so far.<br /> <br />For me to sum it up:<br /> -It seems the consensus is that a one stop improvement while shooting at ISO 3200/6400 is a realistic expectation, with eiher one of the new camera's, including the D810.<br />D750, Df an D4(s) give slight improvements from there onwards, but nothing spectacular and only at really, really high ISO's, right?<br /> -I am aware that my preference for not using noise reduction software is a factor I could reconsider. I just rather not if I had the option.<br> <br /> The reason for not including a D3s/D4 is that I feel it is time to consider a smaller, but most of all lighter camera. Never thought that would be an issue for a healthy strong young man like myself, but I did have several long shoots where my elbow and wrist hurt for weeks after...<br />Another reason is that I felt I left the D3 at home on trips and travels because of the size. Started using a V1 in combination with a FM/FE or F2/F3 instead and that works fine. For some trips though I wish I could bring a not to big and heavy (semi)pro dSLR for maximum IQ.<br /><br />And btw thank you Ilkka for the tip on the Nikon RAW converter vs the Adobe convert. Will give it a try!</p>

<p>I PP in CS6 and prefer not to use noise reduction software. <br> I have a nice set of primes (28 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4), but indeed learned that for this kind of work shooting at f1.4 is not realistic. <br />In fact, if the ISO- and AF performance of a D750 or D810 would permit it, I'd be contemplating to switch from my 80-200 f2.8AFS to a 70-200 f4VR and shoot a lighter lens at f4 for a little more DoF.<br /><br />Shun, what do you mean with 36MP being meaningless beyond ISO 1600? Do you mean from there on the ISO-performance of the D750 is significantly better than that of the D810?</p>

<p>Hi there,<br> I realise I might have asked this question in another, less specific way earlier, but I'm still not sure...<br />Having shot rock concerts, dance performances and available light indoor events (speeches, awards etc.) with a D700 and a D3 for the last years, lately I feel more and more the need for an improvement in the IQ- department, mainly with regards to noise but also AF-acuity.<br> I often shoot at ISO3200, f2.8 and 1/125s, but sometimes need to drop the speed to 1/60 (greatly increased risk of camera shake) or bump the ISO to 6400 (severe drop in IQ). For me ISO 3200 is the limit of my IQ-comfortzone with these camera's.<br> Which is not bad, and there's always room to improve my skills to nail the exposure even more right, but it would be great if I had a camera that I could use at ISO 6400 and that would give me the IQ comparable with that of my current D3 at ISO 1600 in those situations (2-stop ISO improvement). With the new generation of camera's, is that a realistic expectation?<br> I'm talking about either a D810 or D750 coming from a D700/D3 (D3s, D4/s is no option for me). I know the D750 has great AF and hi-ISO performance, but from what I've read the D810 is no slouch either and has some things going for it which I value.<br> I'm not so much interested in which camera is (slightly) better than the other at exotic high ISO, but is it realistic to expect a stop improvement at ISO 6400 compared to my D3 at ISO 3200 with either of those camera's?<br /><br /><br> Thanks for your thoughts<br />Ray</p>

<p>Don't know exactly how limited budget your budget is, but I use a D3, 28-70/f2.8 and 80-200f2.8 AFS for such occasions and would recommend them.<br> High ISO is not as good as the latest generation pro camera's, but this yesteryear's pro-gear is a joy to use and for me the results (for web-galleries and 8" x 10" prints) are fine up to ISO3200.<br> To me they are good value for the money these days. Of course only second hand.<br> <br />Grtz Ray</p>