john_newell2

<p>Still looking to confirm or deny my recollection, but I do see this in the instruction manual:<br>

<br />"Even if the exposure meter is switched on for prolonged periods, so little urrent is consumed that this has no effect on the seful life of the battery."<br>

<br />A couple of notes. You can only meter horizontally (the deflection needle won't read accurately if you up-end the camera). If you touch the shutter release button at all while metering you will get an inaccurate reading, because the meter arm will start to retract.</p>

<p>I thought that parking the advance lever turned off the meter. I'll check the manual and get back to you. I will say that if you are not wedded to the physical form factor of the classic M (from which the M5 departed and which Leica killed with the M6TTL and subsequent new models), the M5 is still a superior picturemaking tool.</p>

<p>I was actually prohibited from boarding a flight by a senior TSA security staffer until I covered the red "Leica" dot on my 1998 M6 with black tape (luckily they had some in the security area0. Oddly, they didn't care about the red "Leitz" dot on my 1984 M6. I suppose they don't speak German??? Never had a problem with my M3 or M5.</p>

<p>As a former owner of an RD-1s and the likely future owner (currently renting) an M8, at the current US$ refurb price of $3k, I think the M8 deserves very serious consideration...ymmv...</p>

<p>When Nikon introduced their DX cameras, I scoffed and thought I'd never buy a sub-size camera.<br>

I was wrong...<br>

I agree with the post above that says if you don't already know you need it, you don't. The D300 is an extremely capable camera and the DX sensor actually offers several advantages relative to the D700 (such as pixel density, AF field coverage). Pixel peeping isn't really much of a "proof" of the camera as a photographic tool. The only reason I might go with a D700 would be high ISO situations and even in that case there's room for discussion.</p>

<p>I don't want to offend anyone, but in my experience and opinion the RD-1 isn't really comparable. On the plus side, it is a LOT less expensive. On the other hand, the VF/RF isn't in the same league, and the RF is subject to going out of calibration with the most minor provocation (I became pretty adept at recalibrating it but it takes time, a steady work surface and a good target at infinity). The raw files are good but they are not in the same league with the M8 files, even allowing for issues like the IR factor on the M8. Of course, the cost difference is huge...</p>

<p>My 1970s analogy comparing raw and jpgs is that it's like the difference between shooting film and Polaroids. One you can extensively develop and, yes, manipulate; the other pretty much is what it is when it pops out of the camera. Not a perfect analogy, but more than a grain of truth.</p>

<p>...well, then there's the Ducati, no? ;-)</p>

<p>I think Matt has it, but if I had to pick one issue to start with, it'd be AF use and settings. The D300 is an exceptional camera, but it also requires a fair bit of technical set-up to make it perform at its potential.</p>

<p>Looking at/for F6 prices, I noticed that F5 prices have really fallen. The F5 is now a super-bargain (though not what you wanted).</p>

<p>Pretty sure my D300 with 1.10 firmware did not have histogram display turned on as a default - you might want to check the playback menu.</p>

<p>Take a look at the actual comparisons between the D90 and D300 images posted at DPReview.com. The D90 is not even close to the D300 in raw mode.</p>

<p>I shoot sports pics and I have done real-world tests using ExIII 30ms and Ex IV cards in my D300. Although Sandisk says the ExIII 30ms cards are UDMA compliant, in a 15 second burs I get ~2x the frames from the ExIV compared to the ExIII. If you don't shoot relatively extended bursts, you might never notice, though.</p>

<p>This is a really useful discussion. Thanks to all who've posted answers. If there's more, I'm all ears.</p>

<p>Thanks. I still have CNX2 on my main desktop and set it up as an external editor to give the concept a try. I guess doing all the edits I want to do in LR first probably makes better workflow but it is cool how the .tif comes back into LR. The control points are such a great bit of software technology for dunces like yours truly. The Nikon software interfaces are SOOOOO bad! I may spring for Viveza even though you can get NX2 cheaper if you shop carefully...</p>

<p>Any difference between the range of edits you can make to the .dng format file compared to the .tif (for example, exposure compensation, white balance, etc.)?</p>

<p>I have, use and prefer my AF-S 80-200mm but I use it mostly for sports/action. For your purposes, I think VR would likely be a significant plus. You are likely to be grateful for the VR assist long after you've forgotten the extra cash.</p>

<p>There must be folks here who are outputting Vuescan results in .dng format and editing them in Lightroom? It appears that it would work fine - but I'd love some confirmation (or correction) on that. The Vuescan user guide says:</p>

<p>

<blockquote>

<p align="left">Raw DNG format<br />(Professional Edition only)</p>

<p align="left">This specifies whether to write raw files in DNG (Digital Negative) format. This allows VueScan's raw files to be read by the Adobe Camera Raw plugin or other programs that read DNG files.</p>

</blockquote>

<br>

I assume that I can edit the resulting files just like any other supported raw format file???</p>

<p>If you are, as far as I've been able to determine, you more or less lose the non-destructive editing advantage, right? By that I mean that the edits from the external editor are not saved instructions for the raw file but actual edits on a new copy that is presumably a .tif or .jpg. Assuming I'm right about that, how does that affect your workflow? Among other things, I assume that it basically cuts off the editing process in LR, so it would be your final editing step before exporting to print or web? Or do you continue to make edits using LR2 on the .tif or jpg?</p>

<p>I'm asking because I noticed that Viveza is now available as a plug-in. I love the NIK U-point tools but have never really gotten along with NX or NX2 (which, I guess, could *also* be used as an external editor). I'm trying to figure out if taking the file outside LR and then bringing it back is going to be a pain. Thanks!</p>

<p>I think some of the posts above are really missing the point. The OP bought a refurbished camera and was told it had some number of shutter clicks. That number was several hundred off...put this in context. Nikon refurbs are all unambiguously packaged. They are sold by (and the OP purchased it from) authorized Nikon dealers that all have decent return policies. The OP has the option to return it, and is asking whether this is worth worrying about. </p>

<p>Mechanically, the answer is (honestly) forget about it. </p>

<p>As a matter of vendor/purchaser dealing, I think what the OP encountered is a phone salesperson who didn't have the camera in hand (obviously) but had a number in his/her head, either from some sell sheet or from prior discussions at the store. So, as far as straight dealing goes, for my money, this is within a reasonable range of error. I would forget about it and move on - but rather than moaning about it, if I had reservations, I'd get an RMA and look at other alternatives.</p>

<p>See page 62 of your manual. No transport screw.</p>

<p>As Ilkka says, there are specific instructions in the manual. I was looking at it recently, thinking there was a transport screw (there isn't, on the V or 5000; the 9000 might be different).</p>

<p>Les, are you using either the multi-loader for slides or the roll film adapter?</p>

<p>The two issues/questions I have with/about these adapters are (1) I really am not foreseeing shooting film in great quantity in the future (I haven't shot a single roll in more than two years now) and my experience with raw files from digital cameras (and my very limited experience with scanning film) is that there is a limit to how much can be done at the "import" stage and even those settings (like camera calibration settings) often get changed when the image is processed. Since, unless I'm misunderstanding scanning, the best time to adjust the scan is while it is being scanned, I'm not sure that I'd ever find them very useful. Maybe if I shot mostly in a studio under controlled conditions or something like that - but that's not what I do. I'm definitely open to correction on my this.</p>

<p>Les, to answer your question, after that 2007 post I did two things: I bought a used D100 at a bargain price from a local dealer and I bought a Coolscan V.</p>

<p>The Coolscan V was a bust. I used it a couple of times, pulled out many square inches of thinning hair, and put it back in the box. Trying to get good scans was very frustrating (probably mostly a software question?) and took forever (a combination of software and hardware?). I haven't used it since.</p>

<p>The D100, on the other hand, showed real promise. The camera itself wasn't entirely satisfactory (though it made very good images), but it convinced me that digital would work well for me. I miss my mostly-unused film Nikons but not enough to give up the advantages digital offers. </p>

<p>I am coming back to the question for two reasons. In response to David's post, I don't foresee either of these two reasons leading me to wanting to use a roll-film feeder or even the automatic slide feeder. My two desires are (1) to scan a large backlog of color negatives and a much smaller backlog of color transparencies, mostly Kodachromes, and (2) to support my continued but relatively low-volume use of Leica film rangefinders (I'm not likely to be buying an M8).</p>

<p>My hunch is that the Coolscan V will do nearly all of what I want to do and that as far as scan quality the only advantage would be for very contrasty slides - of which I just don't have that many. The other issue is time, and that's harder to evaluate. The third issue, and here there's no difference between the two, is getting decent results without turning the air blue. Maybe I need to try VueScan or Silverfast. I actually enjoy using Lightroom but I've tried twice, unsuccessfully, to make Nikon Capture and Capture NX2 work for me. Maybe some other interface would facilitate getting good results in a reasonable time. The reason I'm asking again, now, is that B&H and Adorama still have Super Coolscan 5000s in stock but I'm sure that this is a dead-end product as far as Nikon's concerned so there is an element of now or never on switching to the 5000 if that would offer real benefits.</p>