john_newell2

<p>I hesitate to ask, but I have spent three days searching here and elsewhere and would like to see if there are any new thoughts or better summaries, or maybe just get a reality check.</p>

<p>I am trying to figure out just how much a Super Coolscan 5000 will do that a Coolscan V won't. Forget the $500/ea roll film and auto slide feeders. I'm unlikely ever to buy those. I think it comes down to scanning speed, bit depth and what Nikon calls "density range."</p>

<p>The density range difference isn't that great on paper: 4.2 compared to 4.8. And, it seems that those are basically derived from the 14 vs. 16 bit difference. For color negs, that seems to be irrelevant (yes/no?). For slides, it probably only matters with high contrast slides that have a lot of dark areas (yes/no?). For b&w, it just doesn't matter. Most of what I want to scan is color negs. So the extra cost of the 5000 doesn't seem to offer much? (Your opinion welcome.)</p>

<p>Scanning speed is the other thing that separates these. That seems like a very subjective question. How much time do you, or I, want to spend twiddling our thumbs while the scanner scans? I'd like to say that it's not a big issue but I suppose if the process gets annoying enough the question is "spend an extra $500 on the Super 5000 and actually use it or save $500 on the V but get frustrated and never finish scanning the old negs." I have read comments by people who seemed to have given up because of the time involved. Does the 5000 really run a twice the speed of the V in real life with various tools and adjustments dialed in? Is it <em>more</em> than twice as fast with things like ICE and DEE and software corrections running?</p>

<p>I'd really appreciate comments from anyone who's used both, if there's anyone in that category out there. Many thanks!</p>

<p>Since sample variation has been mentioned twice, I'd add that I had an opportunity to pretty thoroughly evaluate two copies of the Tokina recently and although they were slightly different, both were entirely acceptable in every respect. With *any* lens more complicated than a 50mm f/1.8 I would only buy if I could test first or if I could return the lens to the vendor.</p>

<p>Isn't it also possible (likely?) that even if the gradient on the split image "rangefinder" was the same on all of the screens discussed, viewfinder magnification would affect your perception? I don't recall what the nominal VF magnification of the FE/FM series was (nor whether it changed from model to model), nor do I remember the VF magnification for the F3 and F3HP finders...</p>

<p>Also, as some of the posts above note, it's likely that the different versions (for different focal length/max aperture lenses) of the K screen for the F3 have different gradients to deal with the split image blacking out.</p>

<p>Can of worms? - maybe. What I was thinking was that the range of processing issues and variables inherent in jpg output is big enough that jpgs might not be a reliable test for a lens. If the raw files are sharp in the plane and location of focus, I think you might have either a camera setting issue and/or a post-processing issue to resolve before you can really blame the lens.</p>

<p>The Tokina's range sounds a little better if you "convert" to FX equivalent - i.e., it is ~ 16-24mm. Paired with a 17-55 or something similar, it's a very logical choice unless you really want a wider range because you spend a lot of time at those focal lengths.<br>

<br />Having a constant f/2.8 aperture is nice, not only when you trip the shutter but when you or the camera is focusing. As a design issue, something had to give when they went to f/2.8 and focal length range was a logical trade-off.</p>

<p>I recently sold a v.1 Tamron 17-50/2.8. It was sharp on the sensor and fast focusing. No complaints about the v.1 Tamron.</p>

<p>See my answer above. <br>

BTW, are you evaluating raw files or jpgs?</p>

<p>I have owned and used the Nikkor 17-55/2.8 and the Tokina 15-50/2.8. Overall both were probably equally sharp with different sweet spots depending on focal length and center vs. corner. If your photos are not sharp, either your technique needs improvement or you have a bad example. I went through two (clean) used 80-200/2.8 AF-S zooms before I got one (new) that was as sharp as it should be. Neither used one performed well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>4. Memory card in camera is protected against mechanical accidental damage to the card and to the memory card chip socket.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Has <strong><em>anyone</em></strong> here ever done that while not incapacitated by controlled substances?</p>

<p>Both here. I have Lightroom and NikonTransfer set to import on the primary physical drive and backup simultaneously on the second (internal) phyiscal drive. Every week I back up to an external drive. </p>

<p>I'm not sure you need to look for a runner-up. KEH has an EX (which translates to almost like new) for $380. A local store here has one in similar condition for $399 (and might be willing to bargain down a bit?). Perhaps the collector pricing for FM3a bodies today only applies to NIB/ANIB cameras, not lightly-used users.</p>

<p>Anita, the two posts above are very thorough and thoughtful. While no one can tell you which camera *you* will get along with best, I think the two leading candidates are F100 if you want or don't mind AF and some (optional) automation or FM2n if you must have a shutter that will fire even if the battery for the meter has died. </p>

<p>First, I think Shun's and others' advice about considering a DSLR or AF film body is not bad at all. A D100 can be had pretty economically, as can various other two-digit Nikon DSLR bodies, and will take very good pictures for your purposes.</p>

<p>I would stay away, far away, from an FE2. They are not cheap, and they are all very, very old at this point and a fair number of parts are available only on a "donor" basis (as opposed to from Nikon). The FE2 was discontinued long before the FM2n was. If you really want a MF film body with AE, I'd consider instead an F3.</p>

<p>I was googling around on this lens and found that the MIR website has a great series on the 80-200mm AF (and, in a separate series, MF) zooms. Whether Ken is right, technically, I don't know. I do suspect that few photogs have good enough field technique to really show up the differences between many lenses.</p>

<p>I have the AF-S and have never owned the AF-D. My copy of the AF-S is a fabulous lens, and I would not trade it for a 70-200 AF-S VR. If Ken Rockwell is to your taste, there is a concise "family history" of the Nikkor 80-200/2.8 zooms on his website. I can't provide a link due to forum policy but you should be able to find it quickly if you Google "Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 History." It is mostly facts with little of Ken's usual editorial commentary. ;-)</p>

<p>Opanda is your friend. Make sure you check, and update if necessary, the firmware. Current version should be 1.10 on both A and B.</p>

<p>The Nikon support pages have very detailed instructions for doing this - you shouldn't need to worry about messing it up. </p>

<p>Sorry, by way of clarification, what I think is funny is what I guess is a sort of translation gap. I guess it's true that if you <em>manually</em> set that menu option it will <em>automatically </em>change the clock, but that certainly isn't how I was understanding the text. %^) Color me easily confused...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In this case Nikon's wording in the manual is somewhat misleading</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess that's an understatement?!? That's actually borderline funny. :-) x2<br>

As mentioned above, I've set everything to "off" now in any case...</p>

<p>Well, first of all, we must be looking at different versions of the Nikon D300 manual, because the version I received (and the version posted here: <a href="http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14435/kw/d300%20manual/r_id/116678">http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14435/kw/d300%20manual/r_id/116678</a> on Nikon's support website [see note below]) have the clock information on page 315, not 316.</p>

<p>The manual says, in the table under "World Time," Option: Daylight saving time / Description: Turn daylight saving time on or off. The camera clock will automatically be advanced or set back one houir. The default setting is [Off]. </p>

<p>Unless I am misreading this, the D300 is capable of being set to follow DST settings. This may or may not be a useful feature, but it does appear to be a feature of the D300.</p>

<p>Note: because of Nikon's strict copyright views, no link to an actual image is provided - the link above has two different versions of the Acrobat-format manual provided, one for registered owners and one for others.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nope, you have to change it manually. I've never had a camera that does this automatically.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You need to buy a D300. ;-) According to the Nikon manual (p. 315, the D300 does automatically change the clock. As Shun points out, and this had already occurred to me, the D200 would precede the change in dates. With the understanding that these clocks aren't all that accurate anyway, the goal is to keep the clocks more or less synchronized across multiple bodies to facilitate sorting by capture time. With that in mind, it seems the best approach is to turn DST off in all bodies. </p>

<p>The D200 has a setup menu pick for daylight savings time (on/off). Does this change the camera clock automatically, like the D300, or is it a manual setting that the user has to adjust at the appropriate times of year? Googling this forum and the web didn't produce any reliable-looking answers. Thank you!</p>

<p>Firmware up to date?</p>

<p>For what it's worth, thinking about my single D200 incident, it's possible that my unintended one-way raw->jpg change could have been the result of a two-button reset. That would have taken some doing, but it's my best theory. That wouldn't explain going from NEF to jpg and back to NEF, though.<br>

Shun, totally agree about the loss of the dedicated bracketing button!</p>

<p>I agree that it's hard and improbable, but I had it happen, once, going only one way (raw->jpg), on my D200. I don't know how it happened, but I'm sure it was some odd set of coincidences rather than a camera issue. I have never intentionally shot a .jpg in my life in a DSLR. ;-)<br /><br />I recently had a similar odd coincidence where I managed to accidentally turn on bracketing on my D300. Must have managed to depress the FN button at the same time I turned the command wheel.</p>