bgelfand

<p>See page 46 of the English version of the D90 manual. Live view can be used for up to one hour and will self cancel to prevent overheating.</p> <p>I suggest you download the PDF version of the manual. It is quite easy to search; it makes it much easier to find things than in the print manual. Here is a link:<br> https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/16087</p> <p> </p>

<p>More important that competing with each other in lenses, both Nikon and Canon must worry about competing with the third party lens makers like Sigma and Tamron and to some extent Tokina.</p> <p>There are very few people who have a Nikon system (camera bodies, lenses, flashes) who would change to Canon because a lens or two may be a few hundred dollars less expensive and vice versa. That is nothing to what they would lose selling the kit they have and purchasing a new kit. But they can purchase a third party lens to fill their needs for considerably less than the equivalent Nikon or Canon lens and keep their current kit intact.</p> <p>For people purchasing a DSLR for the first time, the starting kits are close to evenly priced.</p> <p>The quality of the third party lenses has increased significantly in the past 10 years to the point some are rated nearly as good as or in some cases better than the equivalent Nikon or Canon lens. Of course in some few cases the price of some third party lenses may also exceed the price of the equivalent Nikon or Canon lens, something unheard of several years ago.</p> <p>The third party competition must be worrying to both Canon and Nikon and for higher range lenses may influence them more than the price of the other manufacturer.</p>

<blockquote> <p>How could the same sunlight falling on your skin harm a CMOS sensor?</p> </blockquote> <p>The same way it could harm your eyes if you look directly into the sun for long enough.</p>

<p>This might work:</p> <p>http://optechusa.com/straps/s-o-s-strap.html</p> <p>It would certainly be strong enough.</p>

<p>Wow, that takes me back a few years, to 1952. I learned to develop that way at summer camp. Like Murray and JDM it was an ortho film; the dark room had a very dim red safety light. I was 10-years old when the darkroom bug bite me. I've been doing it on and off ever since.</p>

<p>That certainly is a valid approach, Kent.</p> <p>For lens purchases, the one major difference I see between the D3300 and the D4s is sensor size and the crop factor that goes with it. A 50mm lens would give a field of view equivalent to a 75mm lens on a D4s (or D610/D810). Other lenses are affected in like manner. I should think that first you have to decide whether you want to go with an APS-C size sensor or an FX sensor before you begin your lens acquisitions. At least that is my dilemma. </p>

<blockquote> <p>This gets into something I always found a bit.....silly. The lenses are more important than the camera. </p> </blockquote> <p>Kent, in the 1950's and most of the 1960's, I would have agreed with your thesis. The camera body was simply a box that held the film and the lens. As long as the "box" was light tight, held the film in the focal plane, and had an accurate shutter, the lens was the most important component and as such need to be the best possible within budget constraints. Of the three major components - the camera body, the lens, and the film - the lens was the most important and commanded the lion's share of the budget.</p> <p>Then in the mid to late 1960's, the TTL light meter was added. Now the camera body affected the exposure of the image; its importance in producing the final image increased and due to this increased importance commanded more of the budget. In the late 1980's and 1990's cameras became "smarter". The light meter was no longer a simple light meter, but had various modes - spot, center weight, and matrix. In matrix mode the camera body evaluated the scene and made exposure decisions. The camera body became even more important to the look of the final image and commanded an even larger portion of the photographic budget. </p> <p>With the advent of the digital camera, the camera body no longer just held the lens and film; the camera body was the film. Thus it commands an even large portion of the budget.</p> <p>You are absolutely correct. The camera is a system. The only question is how to apportion the budget to the components of the system. In the early days of digital, the bodies changed rapidly - the changes were revolutionary - while lenses changed more slowly - the changes were evolutionary. It made sense to invest in the best lenses you could afford and skimp on the body which would be obsolete in a year or two. Lately, digital bodies have matured and the changes have slowed. I can easily see a body like the D610 or D810 serving as a still image camera (video is another matter) for a decade before technology forces an upgrade.</p> <p>It may well make sense to purchase the body now and upgrade the lenses over time as required, as long as the lenses meet at least a minimum level. Although the lens may be more important than the camera body, the balance is shifting from the lens to the body; the two are coming closer to equality.</p>

<blockquote> <p> the large number of pixels means huge image files and relatively slow processing.</p> </blockquote> <p>"Huge" and "slow" are relative. I shoot mostly film and scan my negatives on a Nikon Coolscan V. For processing and printing, I usually scan at 4000 DPI and 14-bit color (the Coolscan scans at 14 bits; Photoshop considers the files 16-bit files) directly into Photoshop CS5 and save the files as PSD files. I end up with files between 75 megabytes and 100+ megabytes in size. I believe this is about the same size as D800 RAW files. </p> <p>I started using this work flow on my old computer - a 1 GHz Pentium III machine with a "whopping" 512 megabytes of memory running Windows 2000. My "new" machine, which I built in 2010, has an i7-860 2.8 GHz quad core processor with hyper threading and 8 gigabytes of memory. Neither machine was or is particularly slow running Photoshop - either CS2 on the old machine or CS5 on my current machine. At least I did not find the speeds hampered me.</p> <p>Of course shooting film does limit the number of shots I take, so disk space is not a problem. There are only 24 or 36 exposures on a roll of film, and film is expensive; "Spray and Pray" is not part of my work flow <grin>. (Nor am I suggesting, Shun, that "Spray and Pray" is a part of your work flow. But I do remember a few posts where people bragged about shooting over 3,000 exposures per day, day after day.) Because I have a limited number of exposures, the AF has to get it right the first time; there is no second chance. So I would like the best, at a relatively affordable price - the D4 is out of my price range . </p> <p>One other advantage of a high megapixel sensor is that it allows cropping. Cropping is definitely part of my work flow. One of the few "lessons" that I had was from the photographer on our small town newspaper. He told me, "Get the correct angle on your shot, then get everything you want and more. Do your final composition in the darkroom when you have 'all the time in the world' to compose." I have found that advice has stood me in good stead especially considering that the at 2x3 aspect ratio of 35mm and FX does not match any standard paper size save the smallest 4x6 sized paper. For all the other paper sizes, one has to crop.</p> <p>Oh, well, this just my ramblings. Now if Nikon would just release the D750 mentioned in another post, this whole discussion would be moot. <grin></p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p> Why would you use lenses and technique that cannot take full advantage of 36MP?</p> </blockquote> <p>I do not know what the OP will answer, but my answer is simple - <strong>money</strong>.</p> <p>If in addition to $3300 for the camera body, I would have to expend another $4400 for lenses for just two zooms - a 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 Vi II - and maybe throw in another $1600 for the 85mm f/1.4 for portraits and we are well out of my budget. If the zooms are not "good enough" and I have to go primes, that would mean the 35mm f/.14, the 58mm f/1.4, and the 85mm f/1.4 and ... And we haven't even considered a flash. That definitely puts digital out of my budget.</p> <p>Of course I could consider the D610, which is a mere 24mp so the lenses might work, but from other photo.net posts, the Auto Focus is not optimal on the D610 and the low light capabilities are not as good as the D810. The 7100? Well the lenses will function but then the effective focal length is off - multiplied by a factor of 1.5 - and I would have to look at new lenses; so that is out.</p> <p>Shun, I think the first paragraph of your answer is spot on - the lenses will work but may not be optimal. As for the second paragraph, money is a good reason. I suspect there are very few of us who read this forum who can simply expend between $8,000 and $15,000 on a new camera kit all at once. </p> <p> </p>

<p>This chart should help, it covers frames material from 1" to 4.5 inches wide:</p> <p>http://www.designermoulding.com/shop/assets/mywork_images/466.PDF</p> <p> </p>

<p>Here is an explanation of the cause of the problem, which affects users with OpenType Font installed in other than the default location:</p> <p>http://www.tomsguide.com/us/microsoft-faulty-security-patch,news-19351.html</p> <p> </p>

<p>I subscribe to various Microsoft mailing lists. Last Friday 15 August 2014, I received an e-mail from Microsoft stating that Security Bulletin MS14-045 had been re-released due to problems with patch 2982791. Here is the excerpt:</p> <blockquote> <p>- <a href="https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/ms14-045">https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/ms14-045</a><br /> - Reason for Revision: V2.0 (August 15, 2014): Bulletin revised<br /> to remove Download Center links for Microsoft security update <br /> 2982791. Microsoft recommends that customers uninstall this <br /> update. See the Update FAQ for details.<br /> - Originally posted: August 12, 2014<br /> - Updated: August 15, 2014<br /> - Bulletin Severity Rating: Important<br /> - Version: 2.0</p> </blockquote> <p>I am not having any problems with the patch, but others are. You might consider following the instructions under Known Issue 3 in this Microsoft Knowledge Base Article:<br /> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2982791</p>

<p>Interesting that you should mention portraits and the D810. Dpreview addressed this concern in this article:</p> <p>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d810/8</p> <p> </p>

<p>Here is one on KEH in EX+ condition for $313</p> <p>https://www.keh.com/353155/nikon-digital-mb-d12-multi-power-batt-pack</p>

<p>An article on SANS pointed to this article on Krebs on Security blog:</p> <p>http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/08/new-site-recovers-files-locked-by-cryptolocker-ransomware/</p> <p>If anyone has been infected and lost files to Cryptolocker, this <strong>may </strong>be a way top get your files back.</p> <p>I have not followed the link to the decryptolocker.com site, but both SANS and Krebs are legitimate sites.</p>

<p>As other have written, I suspect (and hope) that black and white film, chemicals, and paper will be available for a very long time. I do expect the price to increase over time. Color is a different matter. When the movie studios drop film, Kodak will stop producing color film leaving only Fuji. How long they will continue is an opened question.</p> <p>However, you may find that commercial processing may either disappear or become prohibitively expensive. You should learn how to process and print your own film. Good film scanners for 35mm film are scarce or very expensive. The "big three" of home scanning - Nikon, Canon, and Minolta - no longer make or, more important, service their scanners. If you intend to stay with film, a home darkroom will become a necessity.</p> <p>Me, I still shoot mostly film. I use a Nikon F100. I do not think I would get any better photos with a Leica. In other words the limiting factor is me, not the equipment. I suspect that is the case with most people. If you want to shoot film, I would recommend you purchase a late model film body that matches the lenses you have - a Nikon F100 or F5 if you shoot with Nikon bodies, a EOS3 or EOS1V if you shoot with Canon lenses - in EX+ condition from a reputable dealer like KEH and enjoy shooting. The lenses would be interchangeable with your digital camera. If film disappears, (or more likely you decide it is no longer worth the trouble) you are out only the joy of shooting film and the cost of the body and processing equipment.</p>

<p>Or maybe just call it a low key scene. Your hair, frame left, and hand as well as the wall, look properly exposed for a low key scene. And the white base of the stand behind you is also properly exposed for low key.</p>

<p>Hi Clive,</p> <p>I understand your point, but you are taking a picture of a reflective surface - one that reflects much more light then a grey card. It is not the color or the lightness of the reflective surface that is determining the exposure, but the reflection itself. The reflection of the background, which is what is being metered, is properly exposed; your face, camera, and body are underexposed (by design?). That is what I was referring to as underexposed.</p> <p>When you are dealing with a reflective surface, the color of the surface is not the determining factor for exposure or even, within limits, color; it is the reflected image that determines exposure. Black mirror or white mirror, it should make no difference.</p> <p>The mirror is not "lying"; it is doing its job of reflecting almost all the incident light. It is that incident light that determines exposure.</p>

<p>Synology reports that ransomware is attacking Synology NAS servers that are exposed to the internet. Here is a link to the article:<br> http://www.anandtech.com/show/8337/synology-advises-users-of-synolocker-ransomware</p> <p>If anyone is using Synology NAS facing the internet, be sure it is well backed up, to an off line device, and that you are running the latest patched Synology operating system. You may wish to re-evaluate exposing your NAS to the internet.</p>

<p>Why? Because your light meter assumes an 18% reflectivity grey card. The mirror reflects about 95%+ of the light. The meter stops the camera down as if the scene were only 18% reflection and you are under exposed. If you look at the background, it looks like a grey card; the meter is doing its job.</p>

<p>If you take your film to any processor, they can easily retrieve the leader for you.</p>

<p>Yes, Windows back up does create a boot disk; it is called the SYSTEM REPAIR DISK (or you can simply boot the Windows install disk and select the option to restore the backup image). See my post above.</p> <p>I have also used Ghost; it is good , too. But Windows backup is free and a part of the system.</p>

<p>Windows 7 has a built in backup program that can take a disk image:</p> <p>Start > Control Panel > Backup and Restore then select Create a System Image.</p> <p>Point the backup program at the disk where you want to store the image. After you have the System Image, create a System Repair Disk which is a stand-alone boot disk for restoring the backup. It is not as full featured as Acronis, but it does work well. </p> <p>If you are using Western Digital disk, you can get a free version of Acronis here:</p> <p>http://support.wdc.com/product/downloaddetail.asp?swid=119&wdc_lang=en</p> <p>If you decide to use Acronis to make a drive image backup, rather than clone, you can also use the Windows backup program to make a System Image and store both images on the same backup disk, assuming you have sufficient room.</p>

<p>For 35mm film, I use a 50mm f/2.8 EL-Nikkor; there is a considerable difference between the f/2.8 and the lower grade f/4 EL-Nikkor 50mm. For 6x6 film, I use an 80mm Schneider (I would have preferred the EL-Nikkor). Both lenses work very well on my Beseler 23CII.</p>

<p>I wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>Moving Lightroom to a subscription only model is next logical step.</p> </blockquote> <p>NB I wrote subscription <strong>only</strong></p> <p>to which Andrew replied:</p> <blockquote> <p>It already <strong>is</strong> (and isn't by user choice).</p> </blockquote> <p>I just checked the Adobe site. A perpetual license version (non-subscription) of Lightroom 5 is still available, although Lightroom is available as a subscription, too.</p> <p>Andrew wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>OT but I don't see how the 2nd part is an income plan when the new camera updates that need to be engineered by Adobe and other's is a direct result of the camera manufacturers.</p> </blockquote> <p>Adobe forced the user to pay for un upgrade to the entire Photoshop package just so the user's version of ACR would recognize a new camera model. The engineering was minimal in many, if not most, cases. The update generated net income - profit.</p>