robert_bouknight1

Reading the manual a few more times, it looks like "auto" (circle of AF points) in servoAF starts on the center point, and follows the subject around. It is not just the closest object, but whatever is (was?) in the center. Looks like that works. I can make this work for me. I am thinking that enabling the "expansion points" can make a single point more like the Nikon AFC-D9 I am used to (CFIII-8). I'm still a bit fuzzy on how to set the camera to track what ever subject is initially focused on by a selected point as that subject moves to other areas within the array of AF points.

I figured out how to keep the joystick "live" (CFIII-9 set to 3)

Hello, Long time Nikon user just playing with a (now) cheap 1DsIII. I have most of the camera figured out, but can't figure out how to equate the servo AF system to the way I use my Nikons. I understand switching from servo auto (sensors in a ring) to single point, but how do I set the camera to follow a subject around various AF points that I "select" with starting servo AF from a single point? Or maybe the camera does this actually, but the documentation I have does not indicate this. Playing around in single point, it seems that the camera is tracking that point, not the original subject. Trying to relate to Nikon AF-C D9 or group from D3 or later cameras. This is my preferred method to use these older but still viable DSLRs. Typically the servo auto will pick up closest subject, which likely is different from where I want to track, such as the eye in a portrait. And follow up question, is there a way to be able to use the joystick to move the single point around without having to "unlock" it with the AF/magnify button every time? Thanks for any insights, Robert

Yes, a few settings, I'm used to them now. Had a couple of good years using a $350+/- D1x when I was short on $, it served me very well other than the awful batteries. IMO, using raw files and manual white balance, it was about as good as the next generations of cameras at around 1600 ISO. Then the D3 came along. In fairness, I would have had to carry at least 4 film bodies to replicate the high/low ISO and color/B&W settings available in DSLRs. So having setting options are not always bad. The majority are set once and forget. Although I (still) have Leica M & R equipment, I'm using Nikon digital mirrorless bodies mostly. With most menu items set and forget, I go out in manual mode and pick the stop and shutter speed I want, then concentrate on my subject. Auto ISO and WB take care of most of the rest. I do go out with small, light adapted M/LTM lenses on a regular basis, so I still have a toe in the Leica camp.

Last night I was in one of those places with 40+/- TVs. The set next to the basketball game I was watching had some sort of recent King Kong show going on TNT network. Can't say much about the show, but toward the end the female star was using what appeared to be a black paint M3 with a goggled chrome lens, probably intended to be a 35/2, and a meter on top. There was a brief view through the finder, give them credit for showing M3 like single frame lines, but I did not see a rangefinder patch. I think the camera was digitally inserted into the scene, it did not look quite right. Give the film credit for using a classic camera, but this was probably lost on most younger generation viewers . Other props were much more modern.

I used a D1x for a good while after they became cheap and I was on a tight budget, and got good results as long as I set the white balance and used the NEF option. Seems like I could get a good 10+MP file out of the D1x with the SW I used. For an additional body, I would go with a D300(s) at a minimum, I believe the D300 was the first generation with AF fine tune. A D2x body is nice but lacks the AF tune, I think. For the pro body form factor, D3 bodies are getting pretty reasonable, and would be worth a premium over D2 bodies. I don't have any statistics to back this up, but my observation is that the D3/D300 series bodies are more reliable than the D2 series.

The reason for the post was to gain an understanding of why lenses of the same focal length shooting the same scene with same lighting can trigger sometimes significantly different AWB values. These lenses seem similarly clear when looking through them. Just seems odd to get a large difference on occasion. For a lens that is not "clear", my cameras don't seem to be able to correct for a yellowed early 35/1.4, and I am not sure I would want them to.

The DP-12 was always thought to be "the best" F2 meter option. I have heard that the DP-12 is more likely to fail than some of the others, but do not know if this is true. I like the DP-3 which can meter with about any F mount lens that has ears and work in stop down mode with others. The AI setup on the DP-11 & 12 finders is smoother in operation with lenses that have the AI ridge, though, which is nice. Cleaning the ring resistors may help with your DP-11.

Might not be that the 28 lens is flat, maybe my tractor needs a more lively paint job, lol.

Maybe I just need to boost the picture controls a little with the 28. Images were just a little "flat" compared to what I am used to getting with lenses like the 50/1.8S and 14-30. There was more distortion than I remember with other 28s, as well. It was a flat, gray day, though.

I expect that the 85 S will be very good. I have the 28/2.8, wonder if the 26 will be "better". When checking the 28 out initially, I thought it was good enough. Recently, I shot an event with it, and was not overwhelmed with the OK results. For a single lens/camera combo, I would take 28mm over a 26, but the 26 would pair with the 40 or better yet with a possible future 50 compact.

Examples: Well, these were AF accuracy test shots, not worth the space to post. Checking in NX the "more normal" auto WB images were around 4800K with a 50/1.2AIS, the crazy golden images by the Z7 & 58 indicate 6090K. Approximately the same lighting and time of day, so go figure the huge difference in WB. I thought I had deleted the files. I do shoot raw+JPG and can fix in post, but I have better things to do than mess around with WB and any other post process if at all possible. Having shot slide film back in the day, I have always tried to optimize the original exposure. The real reason for the post is that I don't understand how a given camera can arrive at a different WB point with the same scene, lighting and same lens focal length and type (example 50 1.4g vs 1.8g)?

I have several Nikon 1.4 lenses, 35/1.4g, 50/1.4g, 58, & 85/1.4g. I have noticed that these lenses seem to deliver a bit of "golden glow" white balance vs the 1.8G lenses I have. The 50/1.4 seems to have the most consistent golden bias, probably too much. The 35 has a little, 85 is slight but a bit compared to the 1.8g. The 58 has less bias than the 50 most of the time, but the 58 on Z7 went "full sunset" the other day during one usage. A little bit of this golden glow is nice since my favorite subject is people, but I am concerned that the 58 will kick in too much again some time. I will probably retire the 50/1.4g, generally I like the 58 better as well as the 50/1.8S. Observations are mostly on a Z7 but I think similar on D850. Anyone else have this observation?

100/2.8E, 100/3.5 Canon LTM, and 105/4T Nikkor. Poor quality photo, sorry, poor available light this AM and I am in a bit of a hurry. I should have included a 105/2.5 for comparison, but the 100/2.8E is definitely smaller and lighter than the later 2.5 versions. On the Z adaptor it is actually slightly shorter than the 100 Canon adapted. The 100 performs well but not quite as well as a 105/2.5 2nd formula in my experience. Usually when packing a small kit, I take only one adaptor, and that has been Leica M-Z in the past. I paired the 100 Canon with a Voigtlander 40/1.4 M. Now that I have the 28 & 40 Z pancakes, the V40/1.4M may get left behind. I might pit the adapted 100E against the Canon (again) or 85/1.8G. The 85 will "win" but does not fit in a pocket as well as small 100s would. Off topic, I have not compared the 40Z to the V40/1.4 yet. If I can take a 2nd lens, the 28Z is my first choice of the pancake pair, but the 40 makes a good compact one lens solution. OTOH, maybe an 85, 105, 24-120 or 24-200Z lens is in the future for me. Larger/heavier lenses are fine when I am concentrating on photos, but lenses that get out of the way are nice when photography is a secondary activity.

I dusted off the 105/2DC yesterday and tested it on a very high mileage D850. Thinking about the last time I regularly used the lens, it was on a D800 that seemed very "needy" of AF fine tune for every lens mounted for whatever reason. I think that camera must have had something a little loose inside maybe. On this D850, the pairing seemed to be fairly consistent at arriving at the same focus plane at close range for each refocused test. I did give it a +3 tune. Looking forward to trying the lens again in a shoot, I will use the 105/D850 pair and compare to the 105/1.4 on a Z7. The 105/1.4 will be a little sharper, but that is not everything. Even at 2.8, the DOF is very narrow viewed at 45MP 100%. I piddled with the defocus control. Setting to correspond to f/2.8 aperture, the bokeh was slightly better, but the plane of focus seemed to shift slightly and focal plane resolution seemed a little less. I probably won't experiment with the defocus, too many variables. Also makes one question the point of more than 45MP, or in reality 24MP+/-. But, yes, sometimes it is good to have more MP for cropping or tripod nature shots with everything just right.

Nikon’s 105 has to be the focal length most uniquely associated with the brand. I bought an AI new in the late 70’s as the first lens to supplement the 50/1.4 that came with my FM. Sadly, that FM & 105 were stolen. Curious to hear input from others. Sorry for the long post. I have too many 105’s now. In thinking about writing this this post, it occurred to me that I don’t have a stand out favorite, maybe that’s why I have too many. I don’t have the new 105 S Micro (yet), but may get one if it is small/light enough to displace one of my favorites in the bag. So here it goes: Favorites: The 105/1.4E is easily the best performing variant I have, sharp and great bokeh. Why is it not my overall favorite? It may be too sharp for portraits, it won’t (usefully) work on any film camera, and it is a little large and heavy. So, I keep others around. So, which to list second? 105/2.5 P.C. from the early 70’s converted to AI. This version has the later optical formula and coatings and the earlier (nicer, IMO) metal focusing ring construction with slower “throw” for more precise manual focusing. So, the best classic variant? These early 70’s lenses are the nicest manual lenses to use, IMO. Probably listed 2nd here just due to flexibility across all Nikon cameras, maybe the RF model should be 2nd. Almost second: 105/1.8 AIS. This lens works very well on a Z6 and film cameras. Also, nice to use: 105/2.5 PC rangefinder lens in LTM (or Nikon RF). These have a great feeling long throw focusing ring. Optical performance might be better than the F mount Sonnar type that supposedly was slightly recomputed to clear the F SLR mirror. Nice round multi blade iris so no stop signs in the background at f/4. Though small, they are heavy for the size, no shortage of brass and glass in the construction. These RF lenses have a new life adapted to the Z, though the Z7 might show limits of the optics. Canon 100/3.5 LTM rangefinder. Sorry, I can’t resist adding it here. My choice when packing a Z kit with smallest/lightest lenses possible. It’s tiny and weighs nothing, performance is good enough though not as good as the 105/2.5 RF from the same era. I do prefer it to the small/light Leica 90’s I have. The uncommon Nikon 105/4 “T” also seems good but has not earned a spot in my bag. Less Favorites: Surprise: 105/2DC. The DC probably has the best portrait face rendition of all of the short tele’s I have. But, manual focus is too difficult on a Z, the throw is too “fast” for enough precision with moving subject camera distance. For me, anyway. I have had some issues with AF focus precision using DSLRs. It always seems that the image with best facial expression from a series is ever so slightly out of focus. Maybe I should stop down a little more and use the defocus control to increase background blur. Hmm, a new project, I am not ready to give up on the lens yet. I have had better luck with 105DC AF vs 135DC. 105/2.8G AFS VR. Maybe I don’t have a good sample. I am always underwhelmed with results when I use it, though nothing seems “wrong”. So, I don’t use it. Others: Screw drive micro 105’s. They might be good, but I have not tried one. Any suggestions? I have a 105/4 AI micro that seems fine if I need a 105 for close up work. The Nikon 100/2.8E AIS is light and performs well. Old rangefinder lenses have a more round iris, so I prefer those on Z cameras.

Years ago, I went "back" to a D1x when the newer camera I had (D2hs maybe?) was stolen and I did not have much $. The D1x seemed the best used price to performance ratio at that time. That D1x served me well, even at lofty for the time ISO 1600+/- shooting indoor sports, as long as I used NEF files and used an exposed grey card for white balance setting. A faster frame rate would have been nice. After using that D1x for a few years, I think I replaced it with a D300 before getting a full frame D700. I have given up on batteries for it. When I take the antiques out for fun to see if they still work, I use a Nikon 120V adaptor. At one point, I bought some sort of Li-ion battery that seemed to have the correct voltage and size and then hacked open a dead battery pack to try to concoct a more modern battery setup, but never finished the project. Those pieces are in a box somewhere buried after a move.

Kevin, I think I understand what you see and what you are trying to achieve. When I moved from a D800 to a D810 as primary body several years ago, I liked the D810 body much better but I kept thinking that I was less happy with the color. I briefly had a D4 at that time and liked the results a lot, but a friend really wanted the D4 so it was sold. The D810 was "supposed" to be better. Last year, looking for an inexpensive camera to give a nephew, I got a deal on a D800. I really like the SOOC JPG colors that that D800 and a D3x that I have produce. My Z cameras and cheap high mileage D850 just seem a little blue by comparison. Sure, I can go into raw files and "equalize" things, but I just don't enjoy photo software, prefer to get the best possible camera output to minimize computer time. BTW, I kept the D800 and gave him a D610. I keep playing with the white balance "adjustment tweaker" a little bit to warm up the later cameras. Maybe I just don't want what is likely the more accurate color balance in the Z7 and D850. On the Z7, I have the A-B at .5 which is better IMO. No doubt that the D850 and Z7 produce a little more detail than the lower MP cameras. But I would (and often do) trade that slight detail advantage for the color rendition that the D3x and D800 antiques produce. As far as megapixels and details go, there seems to be a good bit of difference between the 12MP D3s I still have and a D3x, but less of a detail increase from a 24MP to the 45MP Z or D850. Comparison is using one of my best lenses (105/1.4G) at high shutter speed. My conclusion is that 24MP is good enough for most handheld type photos, particularly portraits. If I can keep the ISO below 1000, the D3x files look great. The eye AF in the Z cameras is a nice feature, though.

Thanks for the posts. Will now clean myself should the need arise. I have been hesitant to do this since I don't want to damage a sensor. Fortunately, I have no seen a need in a long time since D1x and maybe a D3 that I wound up selling.

I have used the gen 2 push pull 80-200/2.8, the AFS version, and now own a 70-200/2.8 VRI. The push pull V2 had adequate focus speed, I am pretty sure focus is faster than the earlier first version. The AFS version was sharper at close distances near 200mm. I would be hesitant to buy any of the first version AFS lenses in 2022, I had several fail and repair is probably not available now. For portraiture, I recommend looking in to the first version 70-200 VR that is not very expensive these days. The lens has a reputation for being "not good" on full frame. I find that the slightly darker and softer FX corners create a nice look for portraiture. I preferred it to the squeaking 80-200/2/8 I had, and to the screw drive zooms. The VR is a nice feature to have, also. I have not used a 2 ring 80-200 screw drive but performance should be similar to the V2 push pull. In comparison to an 85/1.8g, all of the 2.8 zooms except for the very first version should equal or exceed the 1.8g "real world" focus speed, which is fast enough for most sporting events. It has been a long time, but I think I shot soccer with the V2 2.8 with success. There was not enough light in our local HS BB gym for a 2.8 lens on a DSLRs before the D3 generation.

17-28... I would rather have 14-24 for general purpose photography if I had to have f/2.8, but the 14-30/4 I have works well enough for me. For "eventing" the old 17-35/2.8 I have and still would use lets me skip the mid range when paired with a 70-200 on a 2nd body. Too bad the 17-28 does not update that zoom range, or tweak it to something like 20-40mm

Thank you! I forgot to search first.

Last year I bought a D800 that works very well, but had a cracked top LCD glass due to poor packing by previous owner. Too bad. I don't know if Nikon would replace the glass due to camera age, I am too cheap to find out. Bought a "replacement" from a US parts seller, it is plastic and does not fit well. Had no luck getting it to stay down. Just received what appears to be an OE glass lens that has a black perimeter at least on one side (I have not removed the protective film on both sides of the glass yet). Also the kit came with a gasket with adhesive on both sides. I am thinking it would be best to put the adhesive down on/in the body, then put the glass on? I have the channel in the body cleaned out fairly well. Anyone had success with this?

I was shooting a good bit of sports in the mix when the D810 came out, a good deal on a refirb D810 let me replace D800 & 600 I had. One of the subtle improvements on my D810 vs my D800 was more consistent AF accuracy. AF fine tune requirements were much less with the D810 than the D800 I had and sold. I bought a high mileage D800 cheap for a project last fall. This one has a surprisingly consistent AF system. I actually like the auto WB results with this D800 better than the D850 I have, so I tweaked the cameras I am using to mimic the old beater. That D810 was sold, great chassis but, maybe it's just me, I always felt that the SOOC color rendition was not quite to my liking. I never could find a picture controls combination that worked for me as well as some of the other cameras. I am mostly using Z cameras now, but that cheap D800 is ready to go.

Follow up: Mostly a success. Battery life was OK. I had read somewhere online to expect around 15 min per battery, actual was much better. The play consisted of 7 short plays, each around 15 minutes. I swapped batteries at intermission, the first battery had 64% after about 50 minutes recording. I will experiment sometime to see if 4K30 uses more battery. Battery #2 fared about the same, so I can expect an hour of record time at 1080P30 one one battery. I started and stopped the camera between short plays to work around the 30 minute limit. This revealed the biggest problem I had. Turns out that the record button requires a (too) firm vertical push on my Z6. I missed the start of the 2nd play a bit because I did not hit the button sufficiently. If the camera was new, I would return it. Would have been nice to have a remote control for this. Other notes: I don't own a mid range zoom, typically I go forth with two bodes each with a wide and tele zoom. But a mid range zoom would have been better for this event than the 50/1.8S I used. It would have bee nice to have zoomed in on one of the short plays. Ideal would have been using a 24-120 on a fluid head tripod, and then zooming and panning around. I had set the camera up to shoot the whole stage, focus was fixed. I should have used the screen to manipulate the focus and more importantly the exposure spot, using spot exposure. Off center spotlight segments resulted in overexposure, I somewhat compensated by indexing the exposure down based on what I was seeing in the viewfinder. I still wound up with a bit more exposure than ideal, the black floor fooled the meter. Generally, I was running about -1 EV compensation toward the end after I figured out to use the histogram, but I should have trusted what I saw in the viewfinder more and dialed in some additional negative compensation.