chuck

<p>BTW, my guess is the extra digit in SB-5000 indicate a substantial change to the underlying flash control mechanics from i-TTL.<br> When last Nikon added a digit to speed light designation, it was because digital required the abandonment of the off-the-film TTL metering, so d-TTL was jettisoned.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I think you might have better luck waiting for a brand new D5 without any serial number to fall off the back of a black, unmarked van on the street in front of your house, than for me to win the lotto jackpot.<br /> <br /> But I will gladly hand out D5s to my favorite photo.netters in the interest of supporting Nikon should I suddenly and inexplicably find myself on the receiving end of the perverse wealth redistribution scheme where the givers are selected based entirely on a lack of working grasp of probability.</p>

<p>Will you buy me an D5 if I win?</p>

I think there might be two reasons why Nikon is doing this "development announcement" about D5. 1. to preempt an immanent major release announcement by perhaps Sony, or more likely Canon. Nikon may not be ready to release the D5 right away, but wishes to prevent the new rival product from Sony or canon from siphoning off users while they are still working on the D5. Canon has abused this strategy quite successfully in the past. See for example it's "development announcements" for a 100Mpixel DSLR, or the 200-400f4 L. 2. Nikon is ambarasses at the end of the year that it has announced nothing in the way of a significant DX or FX camera body all year.

Electronic flashes only follow the rule about shutter speed only controlling ambient, and not flash exposure, when the shutter speed is slower than the X-sync speed of the camera. Once the shuttle speed exceeds X-sync speed, then both ambient and flash exposure becomes proportional to shutter speed. When you use 1/4000 second, you are well above X-sync speed of your camera, so shutter speed now modulate flash as well as ambient exposures.

Can the OK button at the center of the focus selector rocker switch on the back of d600 be programmed to zoom in during the playback mode?

<p>Shun, with every other flower petal hood Nikon sells, the long top and bottom petals have straight front edges. On a flat surface, lenses with straight edged petal hoods stands very stably on the top and bottom petals of the hood. I've never had one teeter or topple over. In the field it keeps the lens proper well away from the surface it is standing on. This worked with 70-200VR-1, and 80-400 AFS. 70-200VR-2's hood is the only one whose long petals are curved. So it can't be stood on the front end. It is far more dangerous to stand it on its back end because the back has a far smaller foot print. I also generally prefer not to lay the lens down on its sides in the field to avoid having lens proper touch on the ground. This makes changing lens more inconvenient when the 70-200 VR-2 is involved.</p>

<p>Denial: I has the 80-200D many years ago, so I can't compare sharpness results directly with the 70-200VR-II I shoot with now. But the issue with AF is very significant. As I recall, 80-200D was a relatively slow focusing lens even on the F100. Compare to that the 70-200 VRII will appear to focus instantaneously. <br> My experience with VR on the 70-200 VRII is it works very well indeed. It's function is much more subtle than those on the 80-400D. When it comes on, it doesn't effect the viewfinder image as clearly as the VR on 80-400D (nor for that matter the 80-400 AFS). But the image it provides are very good indeed. 2-3 stops below the 1/focal length rule can be very reliably counted on. <br> I don't know whether you are referring to the AF-S version of the 80-400. I thought the VR on the 80-400AFS worked extremely well also. If you think the VR on the 80-400AFS didn't work well, then it may have to do with how you use it. I suspect you will run into the same issue with 70-200VRII as well.<br> My experience with the 2 70-200 VRII lenses I had is, right out of the box, the lens tend not to focus precisely enough to deliver its highest sharpness on a 24 or 36 Mpixel camera. A significant amount of focus fine tuning on the camera was required for it to deliver the best results. <br> To Tim:<br> I have one more complaint about the lens hood on the 70-200VRII. It's the only Nikon lens hood I have where the front edge is curved. This makes it dangerous to stand this lens on the hood when you need to set it down in the middle of shooting. The lens will teeter and some times topple over. Why the Nikon not think of this?</p>

I think pixel wars is not over, it's just that it won't be fought on all fronts anymore. Entry level and mid-range will probably stay at 20-30 Mpixels for a long time. But top end bodies will continue to feel the pressure for more pixels. The reason why people may not be switching from Nikon to canon over EOS5Drs is probably because 1) 36 to 50 is not a huge leap. 2) Nikon has been the king of pixel count for so long most people probably assume Nikon will one up canon soon, and it's just a matter of time. So It would be hasty and kinda stupid to jump from Nikon to canon just for 30% more pixels of lower dynamic range, only to have Nikon leap frog canon shortly afterwards. If Eos5D were 72Mpixels, I think there would be a lot of jumpers. I think in 3 or 4 years, successors of D810 and Eos5Drs will be pushing 100 Mpixels, if not more.

<p>The advantages are:</p> <p>1. External flashes can be much more powerful, and cover a wider angle.<br> 2. External flashes doesn't have to be mounted on the camera, and can give you vastly more options in terms where you want the light to come from and where the shadows to be.<br> 3. You can simultaneously use multiple external flashes to expand you lighting options even more.<br> With external flashes, you can think much more in terms of composing a photo like a painting, rather than grabbing a shot.<br> While Nikon flashes are great, there are many off brand flashes which are nearly as great but which cost 1/5 - 1/3 as much. Some of them are even more capable than their costly Nikon equivalents. So I recommend you look into those.</p>

<p>Clarity increases contrast in the midtone areas of a JPEG image without changing shadows and highlights, unlike general contrast adjustment. This way it makes the mid tone parts of the image more punchy, without blowing out highlights and hiding shadow details.<br /> Shun: I recently took a considerable number landscape photos from a perspective low to the ground. These were not in environments where it would have been convenient for me to lie down on my stomach. So I really wished I could tilt the screen up to see what I was framing.</p>

<p>I think many photography enthusiasts do let equipment partially drive their enthusiasm for the hobby. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Many fishers, golfers, car and motorcycle enthusiasts, etc, etc are the same way. They help support the industry.</p>

<p>One more thing. The flip out rear monitor on the D750 is a very useful feature, especially if you don't always take pictures in situations where you can place the camera at eye level.<br> It is the feature I miss most when decided to go with the D810.</p>

<p>You compare it just as if anti-aliasing filter is not a factor. Since anti-aliasing filter is in fact not an optional feature in either camera, the picture taken with either camera would be what they are, and you then compare them for sharpness just as they are. Since D750 has anti-aliasing filter, while D7100 does not, in some situations, the final image from D7100 would be somewhat sharper, provided both cameras are matched with lenses that can support the full resolution potential of their sensors.</p> <p>But keep in mind D750's sensors have bigger and less noisy pixels. So even if D7100 might produce slightly sharper picture in good, flat light at low ISO speeds, D750 would produce cleaner pictures with greater dynamic range in most lighting situations. Also, there would be times when D7100's lack of at-aliasing sensors would lead to annoying moire artifacts which D750's anti-aliasing filter would take care of.</p>

<p>Yes, D750 has a anti-aliasing filter. I have the 20-120 and use it with D810. It is a pretty sharp lens, but it's color rendition is flatter than I like, noticeably flatter than say 24-70/2.8. It also flares like crazy if the sun is anywhere near the frame. </p>

<p>Don't be scare by it. Which camera do you use the lens on?</p>

I initially used infinity focus on buildings and window frames more than 3000 feet away to test the focus on the 70-200. I later got essentially the same results using Michael Tapes' Lensalign G3 at about 20-25 feet.

My experience is 70-200f/2.8 VR-2 needs a lot of fine tuning. I had two examples. The first one needed more fine tuning at 200mm f/2.8 than the D810 could provide. The second one needed +16 at 200mm f/2.8, +8 at 135mm f/2.8, and +2 at 70mm f/2.8. The fact that the lens require substantially different amount of tuning at different focal lengths is annoying. I strongly suggest to Nikon that if Nikon can't ensure a zoom lens would back or front focus by a similar amount through its entire focal range, then let the user define 3 fine tune values at 3 specific focal lengths and have the camera interpolate in between.

Also, my 24-120f/4 is much more susceptible to flare than the 24-70.

DR: Focus fine tuning need is a function of the out-of-whackness of both the lens and the camera body. So the fact a particular lens doesn't need fine tuning on a particular body says nothing specific about the lens. All it says is you have a body which so happen to be out of whack in such a way as to exactly cancel out the out-of-whackness of that particular lens. I had 3 lenses which I tried on two different D810 bodies and one D750 body. Each lens needed a different amount of focus fine tuning on each of the three bodies. Put the lens on a different body of the same model, chances are it would now need some focus fine tune.

Uneven zoom characteristics most likely denote some group of elements in the lens reverse direction of travel, or change the rate of travel, part of the way through the zoom range.

D750 comes to mind. It is a match for the best Nikon currently has in action AF, and cheaper and arguably more versatile than any model that is its equal in this regard.

I think in most reasonably well made modern lenses, the feel of the zoom ring mostly has little to do with the actual durability and precision of the zoom mechanism. It probably has more to do with the angle and shape of cam slots, which is in turn dictated by how much, and along what paths, the zoom groups has to move. I think some companies clearly go out of its way to achieve a certain consistent tactile feel with its zoom and focus rings . Sony E comes to mind. But I would not pay extra for that kind of "feature".