cjk

All right, turns out I was, indeed, turning the rings in the wrong direction.... How stupid of me... After a few tries, I managed to separate the twins. Thx

Hello, I “stored” together my BR2A and BR-3 and now they don’t want to come apart. They seem glued together. Tried to take them apart (rotation) to no avail. Even tried holding one with pliers but wouldn’t bulge. Could the 2 have really fusioned together? Am I doing something wrong? (I pulled the BR-3 lever while doing this to pull the pin out) It’s driving me nuts. Any thoughts? Photo attached... CJK

<p>Ilkka - you are correct. </p> <p>I had seen how to set a different frame rate. What I hadn't realized -- despite reading the manual and working the menus -- is that the icon with NO number actually means 5 fps... I only realized this re-reading the page following you post above. </p> <p>Meanwhile, I have already returned the camera so it's a bit too late for me. Still hoping to find the magic solution... (which might end up being close to Craig's recommendation: probably a D7200 with a long-ish zoom, taken on an outing mostly dedicated to photography). <sigh></p> <p> </p>

<p>Rich:<br> good idea about doing a clean install. I should probably try that and see if I get any improvement in performance. <br> JDM: <br> WiFi is indeed a bit moody, though not as much as in the initial release. <br> Charles: <br> Rather than rebooting the computer when icons don't show up, try just relaunching the Finder (CMD+OPTION+Esc then click on Finder then on Relaunch). Might be less of drag. </p>

<p>Virginia: <br> I have been using Yosemite on a MB 13" Retina for a few months (since October I think). I heavily use Lightroom and Photoshop and a little bit iPhoto. (I also use business apps like Excel, Powerpoint, Tableau, etc.)<br> No real major hiccup though, generally, I am getting more and more disillusioned with Apple's recent OS upgrades. I feel OS X is getting uglier, slower and (slightly) more instable with each iteration. And I've been an OS X user since Panther (10.3?). Yes, many great functions have been added since but the latest iterations are clearly not as snappy as Snow Leopard for example (which I think was probably the most stable iteration).<br> And I've had to hard-reboot my Mac at least twice since October, which is about the same number of times I had to do it from Panther to Mountain Lion (~10 years?). </p>

<p>Robert's advice seems good. <br> I checked the french yellow pages and found nothing in St Tropez itself. If you read french (even just a little) that'd be your best place to look. <br> http://www.pagesjaunes.fr<br> http://www.pagesjaunes.fr/recherche/saint-tropez-83/photo-service</p>

<p>Andrea, <br> not sure if this answers your question but you can create calendars pretty much at all online photography websites (shutterbug, adorama pix, etc.)<br> Unsure what you mean by overlay for magazine cover. </p>

<p>Wouldn't the weasel be committing suicide by chomping down on the woodpecker's skull or spine mid-flight? <br> I was sort of hoping the woodpecker would spin on its back to dump the weasel mid-air. Landing seemed to me the worst option. But then again, he did get rid of him... <br> :)</p>

<p>Craig - good point about the focusing speed of the 70-300. I've used it for soccer when I didn't want to carry the 70-200 f/2.8 with somewhat ok results, but skiing is way faster. And I did miss shots in soccer because of slow focus. </p> <p>Argh. D810 + 70-200 f/2.8: that's over $6,000 on my back, at the whim of a patch of ice (and I don't get me started on some of the crazy people on the trails!)...</p>

<p>Craig, </p> <p>thanks for your comments. Yes, if I can dedicate an outing to shooting photos, then your approach makes perfect sense. But even with a focused approach and careful skiing, I would still need something a little bit more practical on the trails than my D810 and its attached 70-200 f/2.8.<br> Maybe a D7100 (which I don't have) with a 70-300 (which I have), so an expenditure of about $1,000. <br> For that cost, I was hoping I could something small and pocketable that I could lug with me all the time (or almost). </p>

<p>Ron, </p> <p>Yes, I would follow your approach (maybe with a small APS-C DSLR) if/when I can carve out time to focus mostly on taking photos, probably when the kids are a couple of years older and more independent.</p> <p>At this point I need to have something I can keep with me the whole day and that would be small enough that I can fit into a coat pocket. </p> <p>After reading further on the Sony RX 100 III, I am starting to really like it as an all-around compact. But I am afraid the 20-70mm equivalent is too short for this need. </p> <p>Maybe I should just stick with the J4 and learn to love it? <sigh></p>

<p>And another Canon S95</p> <div></div>

<p>With the Canon S95</p> <div></div>

<p>Another one with the Nikon 1 J4</p> <div></div>

<p>So I've been looking for a small camera that I can carry around with me while skiing to take photos and short videos of my kids skiing (downhill). </p> <p>Leaving my D-SLR home (no way I would ski with that), I've carried around a small Canon P&S (S95). While the quality of the shots in good light is great for use, using it for action shots requires a lot of patience and repeat shots to get the timing right... The telephoto end of the zoom is also a little bit short (105mm).</p> <p>I decided last week to try a Nikon 1 J4, with the monster 70-300mm, drawn by its 20fps and 60fps capabilities. </p> <p>I can't say that was a very happy and successful experience. It turns out the 70-300mm is actually too long on the 1" sensor for this particular use but mostly I just cannot get my hands (and head) around its poor handling and user interface (and I am a Nikon D-SLR user). </p> <p>Shooting video: the auto-focus very often missed the subject (but maybe I was framing too tight -- mostly because of the choice of lens). </p> <p>Shooting photos: while the 20 fps seem very appealing on paper, I was hoping I could use that speed to shoot in burst mode, like I do when shooting DSLR. Alas, as far as I am able to tell, once you press the button, the camera will take the full 20 shots, then black out for a number of seconds while writing to the memory card. And while the manual mentions 5 fps and 10 fps modes, I couldn't find those in the camera... <br> Quality-wise, I am underwhelmed by the photos. I don't think they are better than my old Canon S95's. But maybe it's the lens? </p> <p>Lastly, I found the body too "slippery" and the reliance on menu-driven choice for pretty much anything a big turn off.<br> (sorry if I sound too negative -- I had big hopes). I will be returning the 70-300mm but I am on the fence regarding giving the camera another try, maybe using a 30-110mm... </p> <p>Anyone with similar needs can provide some advice, including recommending an alternative? It doesn't have to be Nikon (I actually prefer Canon's small cameras to Nikon's). <br> I need decent quality (I guess 1" sensor minimum), good auto-focusing capabilities (so no P&S), good reach (200mm -- 300mm FF equivalent) and ~5-7 fps. And I guess having HD video would be good. <br> I would also like a viewfinder, which would allow me much better and stable handling... <br> Also: portable and affordable (so no, not a D4!)</p> <p>Some things I looked at: <br> - Sony: Alpha 6000? 5100? RX100 III?<br> - Canon: ?? (I like the G1X II and the G7X but I doubt they'd work for this specific need)<br> - Nikon: stick with the J4?<br> - Other?<br> Thanks! <br> (below are a few photos taken with the J4 and a couple with the Canon S95)</p> <div></div>

<p>Randy: image opens immediately (~1s) in Liquify for me. <br> Photoshop CS6, Mac OSX 10.10.2 (Yosemite), (only) 8GB RAM, 2.9Ghz i7, 752GB SSD (MacBook Retina 13" - Dec 2012 model). </p>

<p>Shun, thanks. I will check again my 50mm f/1.8. Maybe I did something wrong that evening. </p>

<p>Peter, </p> <p>while I agree with your post above (except for "pallets" being evil, except obviously if they fall on your head :), just one clarification: 8-bits jpgs actually use <strong>8 bits for each color</strong> (RGB), resulting in 256x256x256 possible color combinations in a image (about 16.8M).<br> (A long, long, long time ago, GIF files were limited to 256 colors... I am not sure if that's still the case or not, but that's not really relevant for this discussion)<br> And I do agree that 16 bits are the way to go for smooth color gradations. </p>

<p>Shun:<br> Thanks.<br> That was my rationale too when I picked the 50mm to take with me alongside the 24-120 f/4, hence my surprise when it kept hunting while the f/4 zoom was focusing. <br> The 24-70 f/2.8 would have been ideal: I tried it at 2 parties about a year ago and it was fast, precise and sharp, but that's not currently an option. <br> Aside from this specific issue, I've had no issue whatsoever with my 50 f/1.8 (it's super sharp). <br> Michael: <br> Thanks for the recommendation. I might give it a try... </p>

<p>Hi there, <br> A few days ago I was shooting my kids' school Halloween disco party and had with me a D810, an SB-700, a Nikon 24-120 f/4 and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8G. <br> I ended up taking most of the photos with the 24-120, which locked focus in almost total darkness or crazy lights. It would hunt a bit but would focus properly after 1-2 sec. I tried the 50mm f/1.8G and was very surprised to find it just wouldn't focus at all (almost). I think I managed to get 4-5 shots with it, while missing many many more. I took about 200 shots with the 24-120 in about 1h. <br> Any other lens would you recommend for this kind of situation? In zooms I can only see the 24-70 f/2.8 -- which is not an option at this point... But about prime lenses? Any fast low-light focusers out there?<br> Most of the shots were taken around 35mm... </p>

<p>I have a feeling that if Nikon wanted (was able?) to respond to the 7D II <strong>from a specs perspective</strong>, they would have done it when the initial 7D came out... Yes, the D300s was close, but not as capable<strong> spec-wise</strong>. (please notice my emphasis on "spec-wise"). </p> <p>Re the 10fps (which I'd love to have), someone explained to me (here I think) that Nikon is limited by the fact that the Expeed engine is not designed to be used in a parallel-processing way, so Nikon cannot just put 2 of them in parallel, like Canon does in the 7D, hence the limits on the ability to go very high in fame rates. Then again, it could also be a mechanical limit with the shutter, who knows... </p> <p>Nikon seems to have focused a lot on improving sensor technology (with Sony) while some of the other camera components have lagged behind. It might be a strategic decision to differentiate themselves in areas where they feel they have a competitive advantage or it could be something else... </p> <p>Anyway, this looks like a very capable camera on paper. Like Michael said, let's see how good all of it really is (AF, high iso noise, etc.) and how this plays out. </p>