larry n.

I am wondering whether anyone has tried the combination of 70-200 VR and the

TC-16A converter, on either full frame or DX?

D80 is too big for my purposes. D40/X are the perfect size. Only question is whether I fork over $140 more for the D40X so as to avoid having pixel-regret.

Can't really wait (and I like the size of the D40/X more than the D80); plan is to use the kit lens as well as 17-35 (my only AFS lens).

 

How easy is it to focus a 50mm AF? Is there an indicator light to help?

Setting aside the price difference, would anyone choose a D40 over a D40X?

 

(1) I don't think the flash sync is a huge deal; I've managed with slow flash

sync for years and (despite Ken Rockwell's evangelicalism) never missed the

higher sync speeds.

 

(2) From what I've read, at high ISO's the D40X does have more noise than the

D40, per pixel, but it evens out because the D40X has more pixels. At low ISOs

D40X is fine.

According to Nikon, there is no way to know for sure.

 

The number can be reset, for example, by a firmware update, or by a knowledgable technician.

Excellent question.

 

I think at the end of the day it really depends on what kind of portraits you want to take.

 

Traditional in the studio headshots, upper body shots, group, environmental portraits?

 

How far do you want to be from your subject?

Thanks Frank. I am hoping to make use of the TC already I have. I have heard that there are cameras that can set the aperture if set to P or S. Is there something to that?

 

Robert, when I see the word "solder" I know it's not for me!

Is there any camera body that will allow the aperture to be set on a G lens,

when mounted on a TC-16A teleconverter?

 

I realize that with most bodies Autofocus won't work. I would just be happy if

I could set the aperture.

Mark--the TC-16A is a teleconverter that enables AF on certain Ais lenses, but Nikon chose to make it work on only some cameras--F5, much of the N series, and the D2H/D2X. F100 is not one of those cameras, unfortunately.

I got a 400/3.5 and the TC-16A.

 

Unfortunately, AF is not supported with my F100.

First, to correct some misinformation I have read here:

 

The TC-16A teleconverter does not provide AF support for Ais lenses on an F100

(but it works fine as a MF teleconverter with certain lenses).

 

Second: is there a work-around to cause the F100 to autofocus with this TC?

Eric, Nikon discontinuted because it's too expensive for what it does: not a lot. They can sprinkle diamonds on the elements, making them very expensive, but not better.

 

You ask for reviews? Don't take my word for it (although my sample is no better than the ones Bjorn Rorslett tried). Go to Bjorn's site (who unlike Ken, is not a joker):

 

"Big and bulky due to its high-speed design, this lens is capable of rendering sharp and contrasty images at apertures between f/4 and f/11. Wide open the extreme corners are quite soft, but they rapidly improves when the lens is stopped down. ....

 

The wide-open setting produces quite soft images with some field curvature and internal flare as well. You do need to stop down to get really sharp images."

 

So you're spending thousands for a lens that's great from f4 to f11.

Just another example of hype, as if anything rare had to be good.

 

When the lens was in production, it sold used for less than half of its new price. And nobody (except Ken Rockwell) thought it was worthwhile. That's why Nikon discontinued it.

I purchased a Coolscan 5000, thinking it would include the FH-3 holder.

 

The FH-3 holder is important for those times when a film strip becomes damaged,

for whatever reason you have a single negative or slide frame to scan.

 

Not only was the FH-3 not included, but I cannot find it at any of the major

(or minor) photo stores, and not even on eBay.

 

What are the good folks at Nikon thinking? Where can I find this elusive piece

of metal and plastic?

ANy indication of the price?

<div></div>

I am considering purchasing a 400mm f3.5 to use on film and, in the future, on

digital (probably not before two or more generations of digital Nikons).

 

Is this a good optic, wide open? How about with the TC301 converter? Should I

be concerned that I will not have the opportunity to evaluate it before I buy

it? Assume it is from a seller on eBay with a good rating and long history.

 

Is it possible to make comparatively good wildlife pictures with manual focus

and film, when the bar has been upped by AF-S VR lenses and digital cameras

with endless buffers?

Honestly, Leica users are a special breed. If the sun rises in the morning, you attribute it to your Leica.

 

Color fidelity is affected by (1) film, (2) film processing, (3) scanning, and last and least (999) lens.

 

You have a lovely camera, but the pictures look no different from any other camera/lens.

These two seem very similar with, the Photo Trekker AW II being slightly larger.

 

Does this justify the huge price differential between the two? Are there any

other brands to consider?

So Cameraquest.com is the website for Bessa info!

 

Broadly speaking, how does the Bessa compare to the new Zeiss Ikon, also built by Cosina, I believe?

Thanks Andrew. What about R2C? B&H has it...is it just a typo?

(1) Is there a Bessa with automatic film transport?

 

(2) What's the best all-around Bessa?

 

(3) Is there a Bessa that can be focused with both 28mm and 85mm lens?

Anthony, my apologies, I did not focus on the second part of your response.

 

Overall, this issue is what has driven me away from digital capture. Frankly, Photoshop is attractive because it's a one-stop solution. So it's very disappointing that I have to go out and buy Capture and learn that interface, and try to incorporate it into my workflow, in order to make the most of my Nikon RAW files.

Can we ban the "try it yourself" responses? Obviously Mark came here to gain from other people's experience, not to be told to "try it yourself."

 

I can tell you from my limited experience with a Nikon D2H and a Nikon D70, the difference in *some* shots was like heaven and earth. The explanation I've received is that Adobe has not (perhaps cannot) go out and really study the sensor of every camera out there to make sure they have the right algorithm for that camera. So, for some shots, Nikon's program does a much better job.

 

Some people will tell you that it's *possible* to get the same results with Adobe if "you know what you're doing." I don't dispute that. Nikon Capture gets the job done even if you don't know what you're doing.

 

Btw, other people have noticed that Nikon Capture does a better job than Photoshop on some RAW captures. For example, I believe that Tom Hogan has said as much (although I cannot find the exact quote at the moment).

Btw, Clint did not say he was pointing "straight" down. Are you having the problem only when you point *straight* down?