reuven_k

Why does a post asking a simple question regarding whether anyone has received the 180-600mm lens elicit responses from people who didn't even order one?

My Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 continues to autofocus with my D7100 after the latest upgrade. It's always had an issue with proper auto focus in live view. But, that's another issue.

I purchased the 16-85mm lens a few years ago to replace my 18-105mm lens. I didn't see a significant increase in quality, but I did like that extra 2mm on the wide end. And, I didn't like the f/5.6 on the long end either. So, I sold the 16-85mm and applied the proceeds towards my purchase of the 10-24mm lens. But, the D7500 kit with the 16-80mm(when it becomes available) may provide me with the opportunity to upgrade at a "reasonable" cost; The full price for that lens is just too much for me to pull the trigger. I'll then be taking my 10-24mm lens with me less often.

Thom Hogan makes the obvious prediction; that Nikon will get into the DSLR equivalent mirror-less game relatively soon, with their offerings accepting their current lens lineup. The open question is whether their offerings will be FF and/or APS-C.

 

Waiting to see what they will offer is yet another reason for me to delay upgrading my current body.

<p>"Anyone have any ideas of what to do or language to include in an agreement?"<br>

Shouldn't you be asking this question of a lawyer?</p>

<p>I would imagine that one of the first discounts would be the D500 with the 16-80mm lens bundle. As the lens isn't currently discounted in the bundle, there is much room to reduce the bundle price.</p>

<p>Wow! All the bashing at the suggestion of adding new features to Nikon cameras. As long at the features can be turned on/off and don't negatively affect the shooters that don't use them, then absolutely, additional functionality options are great.<br>

There are many features of my Nikon camera that I almost never use, such as video. But, as it doesn't affect my shooting, and it's available in the off chance that I'd like to use it, great to have it.<br>

I can see myself using additional connectivity options (besides pulling out my memory card for insertion into my PC) on rare occasion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon would probably say you're thinking about it wrong. It's not that FX is potentially cheaper, it's more that super speed is more expensive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's it in a nutshell. Ignoring the cost of changing from DX to FX lenses, if you DON'T require that super speed pro-quality camera, the D750 upgrade is the more appropriate choice. Alternatively, those of us with D7x00 cameras who don't want to ditch their DX lenses can wait and see which of the D500 capabilities appear in the D7300 and/or if the D500 price drops after those that MUST have it on day one have received their orders.</p>

<p>Not upset about the price of the D500; seems just right. Unfortunately, the bundled 16-80mm lens isn't discounted significantly from the standalone price. At the over $1000 price for that lens, I presume that it will stay on the shelf for a while until lack of interest causes a price reduction or sale.</p>

<p>Sorry, but you are asking legal questions and not photography questions. I recommend that you consult with a lawyer instead of taking advice from a photography forum.</p>

<p>Mike, that is the nature of formatting a disk; it's not a Nikon issue per-se. Formatting, by definition wipes out all the files on a disk. I wouldn't call it a Nikon "gotcha".</p>

<p>I purchased a used 16-85mm and used it for about a year. Maybe, it was my sample, but the photos from my 18-105mm lens were sharper and had more contrast. The extra 2mm is useful, though. So, I sold the 16-85mm lens and used the funds to help fund my 10-24mm lens. I'm happy with that decision. The only problem is that my camera bag is now heavier.</p>

<p>Definitely, try to visit Watkins Glen. I enjoyed Watkins Glen much more than Niagara Falls. Make sure you bring your tripod as you will have some excellent photographic opportunities.</p>

<p>My D70 provided me with great photos. The main reason that I sold it off to go for the D90 was the ease of changing settings, with more options available via buttons instead of having to get into the menu system.<br>

The D90 doesn't provide me with any obviously better photos; it just eliminated some of my frustration with the controls.</p>

<p>"I'm not looking for cameras that require less skill to use."<br>

Craig, you are in the minority, as are most DSLR users. A great majority of cameras in use are P&S and most of those users would be happy with a camera that offers the possibility of better photos with little or no extra effort on their part.</p>

<p>"Which is THE way to do it. I've used auto-bracketing all of zero times on my D90."</p>

<p>That's a strange statement. This is one case where DSLR automation provides great utility. What would I gain by manually adjusting the shutter speed between photos? I'd also be taking the chance of changing the orientation of the camera by touching it, which wouldn't be what I want for a set of shots as input to my HDR software .</p>

<p>I think that the basic answer is that if you took the photos on company time, by default it is owned by the employer, whether or not you have anything in writing.</p>

<p>I can understand not wanting to do any of this on your time. Very reasonable position based on the information that you provided. So I see that you have only two choices.<br>

- Do all of the photography/editing on company time. The most that you can get is your normal pay for this effort.<br>

- Don't do it.</p>

<p>Did you deliver what you were contractually obligated to deliver? If so, then why should extra time of yours be 'free'?</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, when you have limited competition, you can make those kinds of arbitrary decisions to generate additional revenue.</p>

<p>If you are referring to the 18-105mm lens that comes with the D90 kit, you'll want the 67mm filter.</p>

And, of course, it may entice potential low-end Canon/Sony SLR purchasers into spending some extra money on a feature that they can easily understand. It gives them a reason to chose Nikon and to spend extra $ doing it.

The decision to add video was most probably made based upon a simple ROI calculation. The development/production

cost was probably very little since Live View was going to be a feature anyway. Current D70/D80 users are the

target market for a D90 upgrade irrespective of the video feature.

 

What they seem to be trying to do is entice potential D40/D60 purchasers who wouldn't appreciate the additional

SLR features of the D90 into spending more to buy the D90 for a feature that they can easily understand and is

already

available in most compact cameras. That assumes that there is not a huge gap in the pricing between the lower end

cameras and the D90.

I don't bother bringing any files to Costco. I simply upload my photos to their web site for printing and select the warehouse where I'd like them printed. One great advantage to their web site is that there is an option that you can choose that prohibits their software from automatically adjusting your print. Last I checked, that option was unavailable when submitting files at the warehouse.

 

Sometime after I receive the confirmation email that my order has been printed, I head down there to pick them up. Yes, only JPEGs are accepted.

Yes and no. They absolutely do use C-41 chemicals to process Portra films. But, when it comes to printing there may be issues in that the machine is not properly set up to print low contrast films such as Portra NC. I had much, much, better results when having my Portra NC processed/printed by a professional lab than my local Costco.

The more interesting question is what will Sony do to compete with the two big boys; Nikon and Canon.

 

Obviously, Sony has a ready made target audience in Minolta film camera owners who haven't purchased a digital SLR yet. The Sony brand name would also attract more interest. Don't discount the Sony marketing muscle!

 

But what is the differentiator? It's already there in the Minolta "Anti-shake" technology which is the equivalent of Nikon's VR and Canon's IS, but built into the body. Nikon (VR) and Canon (IS), so far have placed the technology into their lenses, making it expensive to upgrade. In the long run (2-3 years?), I can see Sony forcing the hand of Nikon and Canon into putting this technology into their camera bodies. As technology gets cheaper, I can also foresee Nikon and Sony coming out with full-frame sensors to match Canon. Maybe some price competition too? I wish!

 

The added competition may make life better (and cheaper?) for Canon and Nikon camera owners. Three viable digital SLR vendors should be much better than two. All digital SLR owners would end up benefiting.