chuck

<p>When the camera was all mechanical, and the customer demands minimum viewfinder blackout time during picture taking, there was no realistic way of avoiding actuating the aperture from the body. <br> Nikon has actively preserved lens compatibility (to some useful degree) going back >30 years with it's medium and high end bodies. If the DSLR market remains healthy, and Nikon remains a pivotal player in it, then I suspect Nikon will preserve the ability to actuate mechanical aperture from its medium to high end bodies for at least another 30 years.<br> Low end bodies are always built with razor thin margin and rely chiefly on a large clientele with minimal prior investment in the system. So I suspect the first low end DSLR without mechanical aperture linkage will appear in about 3 years, after Nikon has released about 2-3 lower end E zoom lenses and 2-3 lower end E primes.<br> But on the larger issue, I suspect DSLR, at least the "reflex" part, will not remain healthy for very long. I suspect in 3-5 years, once focus tracking has been overcome, even the role of high end DSLR will be taken by mirrorless bodies. They may inherite the F mount , but they will probably have smaller flange to film distance and would rely on a F-to-F adaptor to preserve compatibility with existing Lens portfolio. The F-to-F adaptor may well feature the ability to actuate mechanical apertures. This would allow Nikon to go forward with all E lenses, while offer those who would wish for backward compatibility an paid avenue to do so.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The live view is not being used with flash. But I don't believe that should matter in determining the contrast of the image.<br> I think the source of the light should not have any serious impact on the contrast present in the transmitted light through a slide. It should only seriously effect the overall exposure value and color balance. So I was puzzled why the sensor seemingly is able to capture the entire dynamic range present in the transmitted light through the slide before the picture is taken, but the picture review was not able to present the same range of information in the picture after it is taken.<br> <br /> I think the explanation presented above, that in Live view, the monitor shows the entire dynamic range available to the sensor i, but in review mode it only shows the range present in a JPEG version of the image, makes sense. If the sensor can capture EV range of 13, transmitted light through the slide can have a range of 11, while JPEG only has a range of 8, then LV can show how the slide contrast ought to look when seen through with transmitted light, but picture review would lose a great deal of ends and exaggerate the contrast in the middle.<br> Now I need to experiment with the adjusting the displayed dynamic range of NEF file on my computer monitor to see if I can make the monitor image match the contrast of the slide image as seen on a light table.</p> <p>.</p>

<p>I am not sure how harshness of the light sources can effect the contrast. <br /> It seems to me that the contrast of the processed slide depends solely on the differing degree to which each part of the slide attenuates the light passing though it. As a result, so long as the light impinging on the slide is basically uniform in color and brightness, it would proportionally attenuate the same way as it goes through different parts the slide, resulting in an image of the same contrast on the other side.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Regarding pre-AI support, Can the Df do stop down metering? If so, then who cares if it can read the position of the aperture ring?<br> Also, just like a car can be properly retro without having the ability to be hitched to horses, so a digital camera can be retro without reaching so far back into the mist of antiquity as to meter normally with pre-AI lens.<br> Okay, I'll sidle off now.</p> <p> </p>

I think there is a difference between the dynamic range slide film can capture, and the dynamic range exposed slide film can present when it is backlit. I am thinking when exposed slide film is backlit, it may exhibit a much larger dynamic range in the image it presents then was ever these in the scene it captured. As a result, its presentation could overwhelm even the D810, even if it could not capture nearly as much dynamic range as the D810 when it is being used to take pictures. Does that sound plausible? Exposure backing is a good idea. I will try that.

<p>I've been using D810, ES-1 slide copy attachment, 60mm D macro, and a SB-800 flash to copy some of my old Velvia and Provia slides. I use the flash, connected to the camera by cord, to backlite the slides, and use manual exposure on the camera and manual output on the flash, experimenting with exposure and output until I get a reasonable overall exposure in the digital copies of the slide. I shoot raw + JPEG fine.<br> <br /> Unfortunately, the results generally show excessive contrast, clearly higher contrast then the slides. What is more, in Live View, the monitor on the back of the camera show acceptable contrast. But when the image is actually taken and reviewed on the same monitor, excessive contrast is clear. The excessive contrast is also there when the image is seen on any other monitor.<br /> So it seems almost as if the image captured by the DSLR had insufficient dynamic range to cover what the backlite slide can present.<br /> <br /> Is there anyway around this?<br> Another question, when the scene in the slide is well lite, the D810 captures the color in the slide reasonably accurately. But if the entire scene is dimly lit, the D810 seem to give the image of the slide a disturbing amount of green cast. What is causing this?</p>

<p>I got the tripod foot. It was $19. So it was worth paying the $19 just to get a good look at it and see how well it is made.<br> It was not cast. It was clearly very nicely machined and smoothly hard anodized. The edges of all the parts are given a very nicely machined roundedness. No rough side or edges anywhere. It has a very large nob with rubberized grip for tightening the clamp that holds the 70-200. The feeling of the nob was smoother than the same nob on Nikon's own tripod foot. It slides and clamps into the Nikon lens very precisely and firmly. The bottom of the foot has the Arca Swiss style dove tail shape and the 2 safety hex screws. My sample didn't come with the hex wrench to undo these screws. So this tripod foot, for all it's low price, does not appear to have taken any shortcuts in the quality of the manufacture. It also looks quite nice.<br> But, it was not any beefier, and does not appear to be noticeable more rigid, than the tripod foot that came with the lens. So the only advantage it offers over the Nikon tripod foot, besides a larger and nicer rubberized nob for tightening the clamp that connects the foot to the lens, is it clamps directly into Arca Swiss clamp, at >1/2 the cost of most Arca Swiss compatible plates. And requiring as it does a much complicated piece of machining, to say nothing of moving parts to clamp onto the lens, the Neewer foot certainly deserves its $19 price a hell of a lot more than any of the big name inert aluminum arca swiss dovetail plates that cost $45-80 could possibly do. </p>

<p>@ Stephen: I am planning to use a Neewer nodal slide on a Sunwayfoto ball head with a panning clamp. It appear to offer 140mm (5.5 inches) range of movement for the camera.</p>

I will use the 200-500 f/5.6 for wild life. That lens is a telescoping zoom. Would the change in balance as the lens zoom effect the use of the gimble?

Let's say the 24-70 AFS. Would the nodal point change at different focal lengths for the same lens? But I am interested in knowing how to determine where the nodal point is, or at least where to look it up. You know, give a man a fish vs teaching a man to fish.

I am interested in using a panning head to take and stitch together panoramic photos. To get a panoramic photo where both foreground and background can stitch perfect together seem to require the lens be mounts in such a way that the panning axis passes through the nodal point of the lens. So my question is, how does one determine where the nodal point of a lens is?

I've narrowed my ball head choice down to Sunwayfoto FB-36 MK-2 and FB-44 Mk-2. Both Sunwayfoto and Sirui seem to offer qualities competitive with Arca Swiss, Kirk, and Acratech, or so close to competitive as to make no difference. Both cost 1/2 to 1/3 as much as those other brands. What settled me on Sunwayfoto are: 1. Sunwayfoto head has elliptical balls like Arca Swiss, Sirui doesn't. Having progressive increase in resistance as the ball head tilts away from vertical seems like a sensible and useful feature. 2. Sunwayfoto offers double panning feature which Sirui does not, at least not without paying significant margin for a separate panning clamp. I envision taking and stitching panoramic photos, so double panning feature seems handy because it does not require the tripod to be level. I have a couple of questions. 1. Has anyone used either FB-36 or FB-44? If the heaviest lens I would ever use is likely to be the new Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 zoom, is the lighter FB-36 sufficiently stiff? Or would you recommend I go for the heavier rated FB-44? 2. Many ball heads, including the afore mentioned Sunwayfoto and Sirui, claims load rating of 60-70 lbs. who loads small ball heads like these with 60-70 lbs?

<p>Don't the PC lenses have a aperture plunger so they can be manual stopped down?</p>

<p>I received the exchange 70-200 VRII lens from B&H on friday and tested it today. B&H went out of the way to get it to me by Friday. I would llke to thank them for it.<br> With best manual focusing I can manage using LV, the new VRII lens definitely outperform both the VRII lens that I sent back for exchange (by a significant margin), and also slightly out perform the VRI lens (by a smaller margin). What is more, the new lens achieves its sharpest phase detection focus at AF Fine Tune 11, well within the range of the adjustment the D810 is capable of. The sharpest phase detection focus is very close to the sharpest manual focus, and contrast detection AF.<br> The lens I sent back ran off the AF fine tune scale without achieving it sharpest focus using phase detection, and with the best manual and contrast detection focus it was not quite as sharp. It was definitely either defective or out of calibration.<br> So I am glad I exchanged it. </p>

<p>You don't completely jettison FX and dive feet first into the mirrorless camp unless you thought a considerable amount about it, and as a result is unlikely to have made such a blunder in switching in the first place that you would then dive completely back.<br> I think most switch back and forth involves people having a foot in each boat, and just putting different weights on each foot as their needs and perception of the advantages of each change.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>- remove Nikon F mount and replace with Canon FD mount...</p> </blockquote> <p>Just that alone would already predispose the camera to dim glory and early death. </p>

<p>I think if the sensor size or image circle remained the same, the smaller distance between flange-to-sensor on mirrorless bodies wouldn't allow any big reduction in size and weight for most lenses. Only wide angle lenses that needed retro focus to clear SLR mirror would be significantly impacted. </p>

When they say manufacturer "refurbished" lens, does that mean it was a previously defective lens that had been sent by the owner back to the manufacturer for repair, and is being resold by the owner after the repair is complete? or that the lens somehow came under the ownership of the manufacturer and it is the manufacturer that is trying to resell it?

<p>Interesting, it seems the Nikon 1 system is such a nonentity in the mirrorless world that it wasn't even mentioned once in a thread about mirrorless where the name Nikon popped up a lot.</p> <p> </p>

Jeff, the fact people don't talk about it doesn't mean it does not influence their decisions.

I think the reason why more people are leaving canon for mirrorless probably has to do with the perception that canon sensors fall short of those of Nikon and Sony in dynamic range, where as Nikon sensors, sourced from Sony, does not suffer in comparison to Sony.

<p>I don't believe view finder (phase detection) AF is sharper than LV. I have personal experience to prove it if you would read the my most recent thread.<br /> But beyond that, I think there are strong theoretical reasons to suppose view finder AF will not be sharper or less error prone than LV. Basically, they boil down to the following:<br /> 1. LV AF is immune to minor misalignment of camera parts. LV AF works by reading the actual image as seen by the image capturing sensor. If the LV image is sharp, then actual picture taken, which is the very same image, will be just as sharp. Phase detection AF, on the other hand, uses a separate image reflected into the sensor by a system of lenses and mirrors behind the main mirror. The key is phase detection sensor is not reading the exact image the image capturing sensor is reading. In theory the phase detection AF should be placed at exactly the same distance away from the lens as the main image capturing sensor so when the image at one is in focus the image at the other is in focus as well. But it is certainly possible for some misalignment to make that not to be the case. <br /> 2. LV AF is immune to aperture effect. It is actually reading the two dimensional image on the image capturing sensor. So doesn't care about how big the aperture was that the light had passed through on the way to the sensor. It will work at F22 as well as at F1.4. Phase detection sensor, on the other hand, is concerned not just with the actual image on the AF sensor, it also relies on information about the angles of paths the light took getting there. So the wider the aperture, the bigger the range of angles of the light falling on the AF sensor, and better the AF sensor works. So AF sensor will work better with a F/2.8 lens, then with an F/5.6 lens.<br /> The reason why companies like Nikon and Canon, who build much of their reputations on big lenses used to capture rapid actions at sporting events, continue to use phase detection AF is because phase detection AF, by virtue of relying on the angle of the path of light in addition to the image on the sensor, can tell how far out of focus an image is, and in which direction and by how much the lens has to adjust in order to bring the image into focus. So a single reading from phase detection AF is sufficient not only for telling the camera whether it is in focus, it is also sufficient for telling the camera in what direction and by how much it should adjust the focus to being the image into focus. So phase detection AF is much faster to achieve focus, and much more capable in tracking a moving subject whose focus is continuously changing.<br /> LV focus can't do that. It knows when the image is in focus, and when it isn't. But when it isn't, LV focus can't tell how far from being in-focus it is. It also can't tell in what direction it must adjust the focus to bring the image into focus. It has to simply turn the lens to try to look for focus. So it doesn't do very well trying to anticipate subject motion and rapidly tracking the motion.<br /> So this probably explains why Nikon and Canon is sticking with single lens reflex mirror design with phase detection AF, where as Sony isn't. Sony has negligible presence in the action photography market, and is trying to distinguish itself by offering the best sensor for static images. So Sony, unlike Nikon and Canon, has little need of fast action tracking and predict focus. Sony only need supreme accuracy in focus, however long it takes. Hence Sony ditched the mirror and the a real phase detection AF sensor, and relies on its equivalent of LV AF. Nikon and Canon needs to be able to track motion and predict focus, while they also would like to have the most accurate focus when speed is not of the essence. So they kept the mirror, the phase detection AF and the also have LV AF.</p> <p> </p>