craig_andrew_yuill

<p>@Roman:<br />There's nothing wrong with my math, if you base it on local prices for film and development in my town. Slide film is no longer widely sold by most stores. 36-frame rolls of Fuji Sensia or Kodak Elitechrome typically sell for around $10 to $12. Rolls of professional Ektachrome and Fujichrome sell for $18 to $19. Slide processing can be as cheap as $8 (unmounted), but typically runs to around $12 to $15 (mounted) here, depending on the lab. Add to that a 12% sales tax and the price will be at the very least around $21. This is a far cry from 2002 and 2003, when I would buy Fuji Provia 100F with processing for around $12 or so. I am curious where you buy your film and processing envelopes from. I will definitely have to look into that.<br>

<br />I can understand why photographers still love to use film. IMHO, there is nothing more visually pleasing than viewing a great transparency on a light table through a high-quality loupe. And the film I've been recently using seems to be even better than what I was shooting with several years ago. But I am not entirely convinced that film is less expensive than digital in the long term. You seem to be assuming a best-case scenario for film costs and a worst-case scenario for digital. I am not a frequent updater. I buy for the long term. My attitude is generally to carefully choose equipment before purchasing, then use it for as long as possible. Typically, I have not purchased the latest and greatest cameras, lenses, and accessories. I have typically purchased items that have been around for at least a few years, and have a proven track record. And I have saved a mint doing this. This is more difficult to do with DSLRs.<br>

<br />That's why I asked the original question. I would like to get a digital SLR for a variety of reasons. I don't know if it would completely supplant my film SLRs, but I would like to have one to use nonetheless. Some "older" models seem to be highly regarded to this day by enthusiasts. The cameras I listed were well received when they were introduced, and some still have their fans. Perhaps not all are the best for shooting at high ISO settings, but I'm used to shooting at ISO 100 and 200. But I think that those recommending the D300 make valid points. The D300 is still a fairly-recent camera and will hold its own IQ-wise for a while. But I'll also be looking for sale prices on the D7000.<br>

<br />Again, thanks everyone for your input.</p>

<p>Well, I had not expected this thread to receive this many responses. Certainly not in such a short amount of time.<br>

<br />One of the things I have found interesting are statements where people never use their older gear but keep the gear anyway. I have recently read posts and blogs from a variety of photographers, amateurs and pros alike, who sing the praises of older gear, such as Nikon and Canon DSLRs featuring Kodak CCD sensors, and the Olympus E-1. Perhaps those who have put their older gear into hibernation anticipate that they might rediscover qualities that made these cameras so appealing when they were introduced?<br>

<br />As for the crop factor, in certain ways this is appealing to me. I am not a big wide angle lens shooter. I have a 300mm f/2.8 lens that I typically use with a 1.4x converter to become a 420mm f/4. With a 1.5x crop camera the 300 by itself effectively becomes a 450mm f/2.8 lens. With the converter it's a 630mm f/4. I think the crop factor is a plus for my needs, not a minus.<br>

<br />Ironically, this morning I noticed an ad on my local CL for a D300 body for $500. My gut tells me my fingers will get burned if I touch it (although the poster insists (s)he has the box and receipt for it), or that there is something wrong with it.</p>

<p>I thank you all for your quick responses.<br>

<br />@lloyd phillips<br />I have been keeping an eye on a number of comparison threads here and at DPR, including yours. There is also <a href="http://bythom.com/upgradepath.htm">Thom Hogan's Ultimate Upgrade Path</a> where Hogan has a table to help Nikon DSLR owners determine if upgrading their current camera is a good idea. I was surprised to read that, as of a few months ago, Hogan was suggesting satisfied D2X, D200, and even D1X owners could still be fairly happy with their cameras. That said, if I was going to buy brand new at this time, it would be a tough one to decide between the D300S and D7000. I would probably also give the nod to the D7000. At this time I can get a new D7000 for around $1275, and a new D300S for around $1575, including local sales taxes. But those prices are a little too high for me at this time.<br>

<br />One interesting thing I saw were around 4 D700s advertised within a few hours of each other. I guess people are anticipating the upcoming D4, D400, and D800.<br>

<br />@lloyd phillips & Stephen Lewis<br />As for my daughter, she has a way of being ridiculously persistent about getting something she wants. A few days ago I was trying to take photos of ducks at a pond near our house. I spent good amount of time fending her off rather than taking photos because she wanted to use the camera and I was reluctant to let her fire off frames of film. My kids were given kiddie digital cameras from V-Tech and Fisher Price as birthday presents a while ago. They don't understand the concept of film as a limited resource. Last week I was given an unused F60 with a low-end 28-80 AF-Nikkor by an old family friend. I don't intend to use it, so I've been letting her play with it. Something like a D100 or a D40 with the 28-80 might be a good not-too-expensive combo for my daughter, although I wish she'd take more of an interest in her pink V-Tech.<br>

<br />@Stuart Moxham<br />Thanks for reminding me that the D100 is not based on the F100, but more like the F80. I'll scratch that one off my list.<br>

<br />I had anticipated most would recommend the D300. At $850 it's a little pricier than I'd like. My budgetary preference would be around $500 or less. At this moment that's around what D200 bodies are fetching. I'll continue to keep an eye on ads. If I see a D200 or D300 going for a price too good to pass on I'll seriously consider getting one of those.<br>

<br />Again, thanks for your responses.</p>

<p>Background: I have owned and used Nikon FM2n and F801S 35mm film SLRs for several years. Before that I had an Olympus OM-1. I have 7 lenses, but only 2 are AF, and those are "screw-driven" type. The MF lenses have AI-S mounts. I have preferred owning and using higher-quality cameras and lenses. I have tended to buy used gear, including the F801S, as much as possible to keep costs down. Plus I feel this is the best way to truly recycle. My only experience with true digital photography is compact digicams and cell phones.<br /><br /> Current Shooting: If I'm not using the cell or digicam, I'm using a film camera loaded with ISO 100 to 400 speed slide film (personal preference), then digitizing using a film scanner. I find the scanning process to be tedious, although I can get nice digital photos this way. I tend to take mostly shots of my kids. But I have started getting back into bird photography. The digicam is okay for shooting the kids, but sucks for bird photography and when the kids are too active. The price of slide film plus developing and mounting is in the $30 to $38 range once taxes are included. Ten rolls equal $300 to $380. Twenty equals $600 to $720. Not much film equals one digital camera.<br /><br /> My wife has wondered why I don't have a digital camera. (Necessary budget restraints imposed by her are the big reason, but that's another story.) I don't intend to rush out and buy a bunch of new AF lenses anytime soon. I have a limited budget. I want a camera that can meter and get focus confirmation with my current lenses. (The least-expensive new camera that is reasonably compatible with my lenses is the D7000.) I have a bossy four-year-old daughter loves who insists on picking up my old SLRs and firing off a few shots any time I pull them out. Ruggedness is useful. Also a relatively-low cost would be nice, so that I won't be devastated if it gets destroyed.<br /><br /> As of today there are a number of Nikon DSLRs available locally, at a wide variety of prices from various sources. Here are some that have piqued my interest:<br /> 1) D100 - $170<br /> 2) D1X - $280<br /> 3) D200 with battery grip - $600<br /> 4) D2X - $850<br /> 5) D300 - $850<br /><br /> Does anyone think any of the above are worth considering at the prices listed? I appreciate that newer typically means better, and that you typically get what you pay for. But I also like bargains when I can get them, and I have never felt the need to have the absolute latest and greatest. I have seen good photos taken with each of these cameras. The above all come with standard accessories like batteries and chargers. For comparison, the F801S cost me around $600 in 1996 and has served me well.</p>

<p>Since Nikon left the scanner market people have been looking for similar-quality alternatives at a reasonable price. One strategy is to leverage existing DSLR gear. I have seen some images of B&W negs posted by someone who used a Nikon D700 with a 60mm AF Micro Nikkor as the copy lens and a lightbox as the light source. They looked sharp and had good DR.<br /><br /> For 35mm scans the current Plustek 7600i has been well received, and seems to be a scanner of choice for Leica film shooters. It was designed in close collaboration with the company that makes Silverfast software. I bought the Silverfast Ai Studio version of the 7600i a few months ago for $439 at B&H to scan slides taken with my Nikon FM2 and F801S. I started to reuse those cameras once I got the scanner. I have been generally quite pleased with the results, although I am still learning how to get better results from it, especially from "difficult" slides and negs.<br /><br /> Some people are using a Plustek for 35mm scans and an Epson V700 or 750 for medium- and large-format scans. There is a good review at the Luminous Landscape website that compares the Plustek 7600i, Nikon Coolscan 5000, and Epson V750 scanners, showing the relative strengths of each scanner. Go to <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/plustek.shtml">Plustek Optic Film 7600i review</a>, and be sure to download the full review, which contains plenty of scan comparisons between the three scanners. The Plustek compares quite favorably to the Coolscan, although the Coolscan is still a bit better for overall scan quality, and has a few features not found in the Plustek.<br /><br /> The Reflecta/Pacific Imaging medium-format scanner looks interesting. There have been sightings of a medium-format prototype from Plustek, but who knows when or if that scanner will come out? Good luck in your search for a suitable scanner.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3. I had looked at the TX100 also, but passed on it because I wanted a compact camera that took decent video clips, which the TZ3 does, and the TX100 does not. As a still-picture camera the TX100 is arguably better because it gives owners more control over things like contrast and noise reduction than the TZ3. Shots I've seen posted by owners in the Panasonic discussion forum at dpreview.com have been very nice. It is also very compact. The TZ3, on the other hand, has a larger LCD (a gorgeous one) and a 10x zoom lens, and is still quite compact. Both start at a 28mm equivalent wide-angle setting. Both are also very nicely finished, as nice as any digicams out there. So far, I've been very satisfied with my TZ3.</p>

 

<p>I wouldn't be too quick to accept the Canon SD870IS as automatically better. The test of at dpreview.com shows it also has IQ issues at high ISOs that are similar to the Panasonic Lumix cameras, and a narrow dynamic range. This seems to be common with small-sensor digicams like the ones mentioned above. Also, your friend might want to consider that Consumer Reports survey on digital camera reliability shows that Panasonic has the most-reliable digicams overall. I hope this helps.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a TZ3, and have taken many photos and short video clips with it. The pics it takes are nice. I have also been quite pleased by the video quality, although I think a dedicated camcorder (which I also own) is a bit better for that purpose. In bright light the video is smooth, but in lower light it does get kind of grainy (which also happens, but to a lesser extent, with camcorders). The TZ3 will take 16:9 (widescreen) and 4:3 (standard) aspect video, while most other digicams take just 4:3 aspect video. The sound the TZ3 records, however, leaves something to be desired.</p>

 

<p>I have to admit that I'm rather anti-Canon right now, thanks to runaround I've gotten from Canon Canada with getting my Canon camcorder properly fixed under warranty. I had considered the Canon SD870IS as a contender, but passed on it because of my experiences with the camcorder. Consumer Reports reliability surveys indicate Panasonic digicams are the most reliable overall, so should be less likely to break down and need warranty service.</p>

 

<p>The TZ3 is very nicely built and finished, and takes good photos and video. I would seriously consider the TZ3.</p>

<p>I'm rather puzzled about why the quality of video clips from upper-end

Panasonic digicams such as the DMC-FX100, LX2, and FZ50 seems to be so poor

compared to mid-range Panasonic digicams, like the DMC-TZ3. The FX100 et al

produce clips that look like they are horribly pixelated (supposedly due to

so-called "compression artifacts") and resemble 320x240 shots taken with my

Canon A80. Video clip samples shot with the TZ3 and others seem to be much

better, smoother looking. This is odd since the upper-end cameras feature larger

1/1.7" or 1/1.8" sensors rather than the smaller 1/2.5" sensors found on the

other cameras. Shouldn't one expect the larger sensors to produce better video

quality, not worse? And why do most of the clips from digicams from other brands

seem to be as bad either? Does anyone have any thoughts on why this is?</p>

 

<p>I have a Canon Optura50 camcorder that has been in the shop for what seems

like forever for a warranty repair. I wanted a compact digicam that could be

used in place of a camcorder when using a camcorder was impractical or

impossible. I have been seriously thinking of replacing the family Canon A80

with a Panasonic DMC-FX100, but I want better video quality than what I've seen

in posted clips. Are there any FX100 owners who are satisfied with video clips

their cameras take? Is there any digicam with similar specs (compact,

28mm-equivalent lens, good construction) that would produce better video clips?</p>

 

<p>A sample FX100 clip can be found at <a href="http://www.dcresource.com/...

.../panasonic/dmc_fx100-review/P1000087.MOV">http://www.dcresource.com/...

.../panasonic/dmc_fx100-review/P1000087.MOV</a></p>

 

<p>A sample TZ3 clip can be found at <a href="http://www.dcresource.com/...

.../panasonic/dmc_tz3-review/P1010070.MOV">http://www.dcresource.com/...

.../panasonic/dmc_tz3-review/P1010070.MOV</a></p>

 

<p>They're not of exactly the same subjects, but they are representative of the

differences in video quality between the FX100 and other cameras.</p>

People ultimately buy PC's to do things. It doesn't really matter if it's Mac or Windows, as long as it does what a person needs it to. In the case of our family, a compact, all-in-one design was what we needed. A similarly-configured Sony would have cost more. A compact-case Dell with the same configuration and a 20-inch LCD monitor would have cost nearly the same. Form factor and usability are at least as important for many people as cost. Unlike the way things were several years ago, Macs represent a good value these days. Especially when you factor in the bundled software that comes with it, such as iMovie HD, which is far more powerful than Windows Movie Maker, and the equal of many Windows video-editing software titles. The first computer I ever bought was an old-style Mac. The next one, a Windows machine. (FWIW, I upgraded it several times, and spent at least as much money on the upgrades as the original machine. In my experience, building a machine yourself is not all that cost effective, unless you use the cheapest parts.) This time around I got a new Mac that runs Windows, and runs it well. I've always purchased computers based on my needs. For my personal needs (such as video editing) at this time the Mac side is better, although for work the Windows side is better. I get both in one machine. Mac or Windows PC's will serve people well. The Mac OS X and Windows XP interfaces aren't all that different. If you are used to one you will get used to the other quite quickly. Decide for yourself which platform is better for your needs. Just be sure to stuff it full of as much RAM, Video RAM, and hard drive capacity as you can afford.

The newest iMac and Power Mac machines feature the Intel Core 2 Duo, which at the moment, for any given GHz, is the fastest CPU around. But there is more than just the CPU to consider when determining the fastest machines. You also need to consider how fast the RAM operates at, how much RAM you have, and how quickly the hard drive operates.

 

My wife and I recently bought a 20" iMac. It has a 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB of 667 MHz RAM, a 256 MB ATI X1600 video controller, and a 500 GB hard drive. I partitioned the hard drive using Boot Camp, which allows me to boot either into MAC OS X, or into Windows XP, for Windows-only apps I need to use. I wanted this configuration so that I would be able to do high-def. video editing, which it should be able to handle quite easily.

 

So far I've been very pleased with the speed of the machine. The iMac's all-in-one form factor, while less expandable than the bigger ATX/BTX-style boxes housing Windows PC's, has all but eliminated clutter around our computer desk. I like the screen on the machine too. It works very well as a Windows machine, a real plus. I've used Macromedia Fireworks MX 2004 for Windows, and it works well. At this time there are few photo-editing apps that were created with Universal Binaries that allow them to run natively on Intel CPU's. The only high-powered Mac photo-editing software that has this feature is Apple's Aperture. Adobe hasn't yet seen fit to upgrade PS CS to Universal Binaries yet, but will ensure the next version has been compiled for them. Some user reports indicate that it runs quite slowly on Intel Macs, which have to use the Rosetta software right now to emulate the PowerPC machines PS CS was compiled for. You might want to consider waiting until the upgraded PS CS for Macs is available until you make your purchase. I won't get any photo-editing software for Mac myself until this issue is addressed.

 

Hope this helps you make a more-informed decision.

This kind of question used to come up frequently several years ago. My answer back then, before digital took off, was that some third-party lens lines were optically (if not mechanically) as good as the camera makers' lines. The Kiron 28-85mm f/2.8-3.8, Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 AF, Tamron SP 300mm f/2.8, and Tamron SP 70-210mm f/3.5 lenses are examples of outstanding optics I've owned that third-party manufacturers could/can create. In the past I would never hesitate to recommend them, figuring that they provided better value for the money.

 

That said, today I would more likely give the nod to camera makers' lenses. For one major reason---electronics compatibility. Electronics make up the real Achilles heel of third-party lenses. Camera makers ensure the electronics of their cameras work with the electronics of their lenses, even older ones. They can't guarantee that the cameras will work with third-party lenses, and often they don't. Buyers of third-party lenses sometimes have to get chip upgrades in their lenses (if available) in order to get them to work properly with newer cameras.

 

Also, the price difference between camera maker and third-party lenses doesn't seem to be quite as great as it used to be in a lot of cases. (Of course there are stories that a number of camera-maker lenses are in fact manufactured by third-party companies to camera-maker specs.)

I own an older Epson scanner. I need to ensure a cable is attached between the film top and scanner body, as well as turn a switch on the film top to On. I don't know if you need to do this with the V700, but you could check them out. If that's not where the problem lies then you might also consider turning both the computer and scanner off and rebooting the system. I've been surprised how often problems disappear when I turn electronic equipment off and then on again.

 

Good luck!

I have one of those. It's very sharp in the center at all apertures, but there is some softness in the corners that lasts until f/8. At that point pictures are sharp across the image. The colours are very clean with this lens. Distortion is low too. And the build quality is good. Overall, a decent lens. I just wish it was sharper in the corners at wider apertures.

I once used a simple workaround that eliminated the Newton rings problem on an older flatbed scanner, the Epson 1640 Photo. Place the film right on the glass, base side facing down on the glass, and emulsion side up. It required the image to be flipped in an image-editing program to get the proper image orientation. The film, however, has to be flat for this to work.

I've owned both the C330f and C220f for a number of years. The main difference between the two is that the C330 is more complex mechanically than the C220. The C330 has a parallax indicator in the viewfinder that moves as the lens is being focussed, whereas the C220 does not. (This is irrelevant if you use the camera on a tripod with a Paramender attachment, which moves the taking lens into the exact same position as the viewing lens.) The C330 has a film-wind crank, whereas the C220 has a simpler, ratcheted knob. The film winding and shutter cocking are linked and accomplished in one step in the C330. They are not linked and must be done separately on the C220. The C330 has a proper shutter release button in the base of the camera as well as the shutter-release "handle" on the right side. The C220 only has the latter. The C330 has interchangable focussing screens, whereas the C220's focussing screen is fixed in place. The last models of either line where the C330s and C220f. Both contained a fair amount of plastic, which made the cameras lighter, but (in my opinion) less robust. They also had easier-to-grasp-and-use film knobs on the left side than those on previous models. I so seldom use either camera, but when I do it's the C220f.

 

<p></p>

 

The best lens was probably the last version of the planar-design 80mm f/2.8, which had a multi-colored coating on it (and which I got with my C220f). The flare control on this lens is superb, and the images are very sharp and contrasty. It was better than previous 80s. Another good lens is the Tessar-design 135mm f/4.5, which has characteristics similar to the last 80. The 55mm f/4.5 is not bad. It can be quite sharp, but it can also be quite flarey. It requires vigilant use of a lens shade. Hope this helps.

While I can see people wanting FF DSLRs for wide-angle lenses, it seems to me the people using telephoto lenses would prefer the APS-sized sensors. My most-used lens is a 300mm f/2.8 telephoto, to which I often fit a 1.4x converter for extra reach. I get what is effectively a much-longer lens (450mm f/2.8 equivalent on a Nikon DSLR w/o converter) with an APS-sized sensor, which I consider to be a bonus, especially for bird photography. Supertele primes are also much more expensive than wide primes. I can't see any camera manufacturer moving to all FF production. I doubt very much Nikon will move away from APS. They've committed to it, and it makes more economic sense to keep things simple and not support multiple formats like Canon is.

I own one of the Mamiya TLR glass prism finders, and find that it produces a rather-dark view. It magnifies the focusing screen about 3x. The porrofinders that I tested seemed to provide a brighter image (surprise!), but only had (roughly) a 2x magnification, which I found to be useless for my needs. I went back to using the regular folding viewfinder/magnifier. I'd only recommend a prism or porroprism finder if you needed to compose quickly and the subject is quite well lit.

Well, prepare to get rained on. Bring decent water-repellent clothing and covering for your gear. The North Shore area of Vancouver might have the autumn foliage you are looking for. Lynn Canyon park and Grouse Mountain in North Vancouver would be worth a look. Cypress Mountain and Lighthouse Park in West Vancouver are also quite close, and are west of the other two places. If you take a 1-hour trip into the Fraser Valley you'll find Pitt Lake, and just beyond that, Golden Ears Provincial Park. If you are looking for something a little more pedestrian friendly you could go to the Reifel Bird and Wildlife Sanctuary on Westham Island in South Delta which has family-oriented walking trails. In the downtown area there's Stanley Park, which has a lot of forest and a fairly-large population of great blue herons and cormorants. On the west side of Vancouver there's Pacific Spirit Park, which is part of the University of British Columbia endowment lands.

I'm always interested reading responses to questions involving comparisons between the V ED and 5000 ED. One feature of the 5000 ED that never seems to get mentioned, however, is the single-pass multiscanning that can supposedly reduce noise in dark areas of a slide and bring out more detail in those areas. Is this the actual experience of users, or is this just a gimmick? Reviews I've seen indicate it can be a lifesaver for some tough slides. I've been considering picking up a dedicated 35mm film scanner, but have been leaning toward a K-M Dimage Elite 5400 because it costs about the same as a V ED, but has a feature set closer to the 5000 ED, including single-pass multiscanning.

I've owned a ratty Tamron 300mm f/2.8 that I've used with a good-quality Nikon 1.4x converter and decent-quality Tamron 2x Adaptall converter to get extra reach. The lens by itself is very sharp. It's almost as sharp with the 1.4x converter. With appropriate technique, good results can be achieved with the 2x converter as well. I know Olympus made 1.4x and 2x converters dedicated for certain lenses, but I don't know if they will work well with the Tamron lens. 2x Adaptall converters may still be available and may be your only option if you want to use a converter.

My wife and I have owned this camera for a year and a half and we've always gotten good, sharp photos out of it. They're at least as good as the 35mm P&S film cameras we used to use for casual shooting. One thing that I've noticed about the A80 is that on the Auto mode it keeps the aperture at around 500 before it stops down the lens from 2.8 (at the wide end). One thing that can be done to change this is to use different regular modes like Av (which allows you to manually set aperture) or Tv (which allows you to manually set shutter speed). Also, you might want to check out what ISO setting the camera is on. Too low an ISO could lead to lower-than-usable shutter speeds. Reread over your camera manual's section on using modes and setting exposures, then experiment some more. If that doesn't work, go back to the store you bought it at and see if another A80 has the same troubles. There is a chance it could be a lemon.

I own the Mamiya C330f and C220f. Before that I used to own a Yashica mat124g. I liked the little Yashica. It was light, compact, easy to carry, and took fine pictures. But, after taking several rolls of film with this camera, I got tired of the limitations of the 80mm lens and 3ft minimum focusing distance. I traded it in for a Mamiya C330f with an 80mm f/2.8. I eventually acquired a glass pentaprism, 135mm and 55mm f/4.5 lenses, a paramender, and a C220f with the newer 80mm f/2.8 with improved coating. The newer 80mm is very sharp and has very-good flare control. I have similar opinions about the 135mm lens too. The 55mm lens is fine if the subject is not overwhelmingly bright - it can flare up easily, so the front lens element really needs to be shaded from extraneous light. Both the Mamiyas are bigger, heavier, and more cumbersome to use than the Yashica. But the ability to change lenses, focus much more closely via the bellows, and add prism finders to more easily shoot active subjects made the Mamiyas ultimately much-more valuable to me. Still, there were times when I would have preferred using the Yashica. If your budget allows it, get both.

I own a Tamron 300mm f/2.8 SP-IF lens. It produces outstanding images when stopped down to f/4, and works very well with the Nikon TC-14 or 14B, and decently with the old Tamron SP Adaptall converter. It's also well built overall, although the Adaptall mount is a bit of a weak link. I've also got an older Nikkor 300mm f/4.5 ED-IF lens that isn't as good optically (until stopped down to f/8) but is built like a tank from front to back. I've been a big fan of premium third-party lenses for quite some time. They're definitely worth looking at. Good luck.

I've used this lens with the original Nikon TC-14, which has the same optics as the TC-14B. It seems to work very well with that lens, albeit there are no electronic contacts or AF connections. This will limit the cameras you can use it on, as well as metering and exposure modes. FWIW, this converter also works very well with the Tamron SP 300mm f/2.8 lens.

Check the ring around the camera body's lens mount that is transferring aperture info to the camera body. Does it rotate both ways when you turn the aperture ring? If you remove a lens will a spring action return it to its default location near the lens release button? If the answer is no to either of these two questions then it might be that the spring that causes the ring to connect properly with the lenses' aperture ring has broken and your camera body will need to be fixed. I had this problem occur a couple of years ago. The problem was fixed, but I had to wait 2 1/2 months before I got my camera back. I can't, however, recall if the problem affected metering with my AF lenses. I would tend to think that the electrical contacts should still be able to send aperture info between lens and camera body. Perhaps you could try cleaning the contacts of those non-D AF lenses. If this doesn't work then you should definitely have the camera body looked at by Nikon.