leif_goodwin8

<p>I think for your usage the AFD lens would be fine. The newer lens does have slightly better bokeh, but in your case I doubt you'd notice the difference. The AFS lens is supposed to be better wide open at infinity but it sounds like that would not bother you. I own both lenses and both are first rate IMO. The old one can take a Nikon extension tube, or bellows, the new one can't.</p>

<p>Shun Cheung said; "To answer Leif's question about who says the X100 is for serious photographers, actually Leif himself said that by discussing the superiority of the X100's prime lens, etc. etc. That sure sounds like serious photography to me."</p>

<p>I think there is some word play here. I would like an X100 style camera as a carry round for photographing friends etc, and I do not consider that sort of use to be 'serious photography' but I see no reason why IQ is not a concern. I am though speaking for myself.<br>

I tend to agree with Shun that Nikon should not compete head to head with the X100 simply because it is a limited market, and the X100 may well saturate it. As to whether a similar camera with interchangeable lenses is a good idea, that's a business decision for Nikon. And we are still waiting to see what the Nikon mirrorless camera will be like, a silk purse or a pig's ear.</p>

<p>Andrew Garrard said; "but given that you can fix most issues in Photoshop,"<br>

Yes, but do you really want to mess about with PS when taking holiday photos? It is nice to have a pocket camera that gets it right first time.<br>

Shun Cheung said; "the ability to change focal lengths is fundamental to serious photography."<br>

I do not disagree. Who said it is for 'serious' photography?<br>

If I want to take 'serious' photos, I use a DSLR. But my DSLR is big and heavy, and I'd like a pint sized camera with good optics to carry around for casual and impromptu use, and photos of friends can be more important than serious' photos, though to be honest as an amateur I would not use the term 'serious'.</p>

<p>Walt Flanagan said: "This all depends on how many people constitute "a lot of people."<br>

Exactly. I doubt it would sell anything like as many as a mainstream DSLR, but I do think there is a good market. Probably not enough to tempt Nikon but enough to make a profit.<br>

Shun Cheung said: "I can see plenty of people want a modest sized camera with a good lens, but not with a non-interchangeable lens that is also fixed at one focal length (23mm on APC-S, 35mm FX equivalent) with no possibility to switch to any other focal length."<br>

I can't say if you are right or not, only time will tell, but I would choose a good prime over a mediocre zoom, in part due to size, and in part due to optical performance, and for me ~35mm equivalent focal length is ideal. An advantage of a fixed lens is that it can be optimised to the sensor and processor in the way that interchageable lenses can't. Perhaps I am in a small minority, but the X100 did generate a lot of interest suggesting that others think likewise. Also looking at ISO performance, it is fantastic from what I have seen.<br>

I like the 'concept' and I cannot say if the latest firmware is seriously flawed, having not used it.</p>

<p>Shun Cheung said: "At least to me, something like a Fuji X100 that has a permanent lens that is not even a zoom makes absolutely no sense. I sure am glad that Nikon is not producing anything like it."<br>

It obviously targets a particular market niche. There are a lot of people who want a modest sized camera with a decent lens, and sensor, such as the X100. Existing small cameras tend to be a compromise in terms of image quality though the micro 4/3 are said to be good. The X100 is ideal for holiday snaps, and for general use. It's not for the average punter given the cost, but there are a lot of moderately wealthy people about. I guess it might never be a big income generator though.</p>

<p>I think a lot of us wonder the same but I can only assume it is a business decision i.e. they don't consider the potential profits to be worth the investment. It would be nice to have a small APS-C body, with a couple of dedicated lenses, and an adaptor for F mount lenses. Still, there's nothing stopping you buying a non Nikon product such as a 4/3 camera ...</p>

<p>12.5%</p>

<p>"Nikkor 35mm F2.0D AF, 24mm F2.8D AF, and the 50mm F1.8D AF (maybe the 50mm F1.4D AF). "</p>

<p>The 50mm is probably quite decent, the other two are somewhat old designs and nothing special. Modern zooms use more sophisticated computer aided design, along with greater use of exotic glasses (prices have come down, and varieties have increased) and asperical lens surfaces (moulded or ground, glass and plastic) to improve on older designs. If used on DX, you might well be better off with a DX zoom unless you really NEED the faster aperture of the primes. I understand that the best zooms exceed the 35mm and 24mm lenses you list, but at a price. The manual focus 28mm lenses are very good optically and you might like to consider one if AF is not needed. Sites such as Photozone provide useful tests but bear in mind that they test at one image distance, and the tests are not complete, so do not take them literally.</p>

<p>I use NX2 on Windows XP with no problems, but a Windows PC is so complex that most software can crash. For a month I was unable to play DVDs or watch Freeview TV due to a bad Microsoft driver update. I don't doubt what others here say that Nikon have not properly tested the software on enough platforms.<br>

My issue with NX2 is the really awful interface: a window that will not maximise, a window that interferes with other applications, toolbars that I cannot resize or move because I can never figure out how to do it, and so on. Lovely processing, bad UI design.</p>

<p>It depends on what you want to photograph and at what magnification. A half decent microscope costs a bit more than you want to pay. You should stick with old lab scopes for best quality at a given price, plus older ones have objectives that are easier to buy on the used market. If you want to photograph a thin section illuminated from the back, then you'll need a microscope, or at least a condenser and light source to illuminate the specimen. You could mount an objective on your D200 as suggested already. Alternatively you can illuminate the sample from above (same side as the camera), and use an objective on a camera with a macro rail. I often take photographs through my trinocular microscope without a projection eyepiece, so that the objective is forming an image directly on the sensor. The resolution of a D200 is such that that approach works well. With a ~10x objective life is not so hard. When you go to greater magnifications, vibration is an issue. At the risk of stating the obvious, use the mirror lock up with a cable release, and use as bright a light source as you can. I recommend you first learn about the compound microscope and the important role of the condenser, assuming you want to go beyond a dissecting microscope.</p>

<p>I think I am correct in saying that the Canon allows the tilt and shift axes to be rotated relative to each other. The Nikon does not. This has advantages if for example you only want tilt. First compose, then align the tilt and shift axes, tilt as required, then shift to compensate for the shift induced by the tilt. Otherwise you have to move the camera and lens, which is a pain. You can align the axes on Nikon lenses, but only by removing some screws, but it voids the warranty, and risks damage. As to whether or not this extra feature is important, that is for you to decide.</p>

<p>As others have said, fungus has a feathery appearance, like snow flakes. That is not delamination either. It looks like it could be grease, perhaps when the lens was assembled, maybe a klutz got dirt on the surface, or even microscratches. It could be that the lens has been serviced by an independent agent who was less than scrupulous.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 18, 2010; 05:45 p.m. "One thing to keep in mind is that the D7000 does not have a Mirror Lock Up feature."<br>

According to dpreview, the D7000 has MLU.</p>

<p>I see that UK consumers are being screwed: UK price = US price with dollar signed replaced by £ sign. :(</p>

<p>NiMH batteries will provide a relatively constant voltage to the camera. Disposable batteries such as Duracell will provide a steadily dropping voltage. It looks as if there is something wrong with the camera. If you are lucky it is no more than dirty contacts.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2075082">Tim Knight</a> "My guess Rozetka is putting out informatiom so customers and others will go to their web site."<br>

That 'wheeze' happens a lot.</p>

<p>A good teacher will present a range of ideas and techniques, in a factual manner, including many which she is not so keen on, and allow the student to draw their own conclusions. They will also communicate in a clear and concise manner even when presenting complex ideas, as they understand the core concepts.</p>

<p>A poor teacher will tell you how they do things, and say that only idiots do otherwise. They will confuse you with long winded explanations because they don't really understand the concepts. They will also present a mixture of truths and falsehoods, because they are careless, and do not check information.</p>

<p>In my view 'you know who' fits into the second category. However, I bet people are queuing up to go on his photo 'courses'. There ain't no such thing as bad publicity: http://www.theonion.com/articles/theres-no-such-thing-as-bad-publicity,11322/</p>

 

<p>"What is the purpose of this discussion ?"<br>

To remove those little bits of annoying fluff that collect in the belly button. Actually, the purpose was to report a statement made by Nikon regarding a future product. Unfortunately it is rather vague. Best wait and see.</p>

<p>"Also you won't gain any magnification"<br>

You do get increased magnification, and that is one advantage of a TC, along with preserving infinity focus unlike a diopter or tubes. For example, Nikon recommend a 2x TC (I forget which one) to take the 200mm F4 AIS micro from 1:2 to 1:1. The IQ might be iffy though.</p>

<p>I tried the Tamron AF 90 F2.8 macro on the TC14A. I didn't do careful tests, and my memory is not brilliant, but I recall that it was pretty good, which I did not expect. But you'd need to double check this, given the casual nature of my tests. On the 200mm F4 AFD micro the TC14A is atrocious, or at least my copies do not work well together. On the Nikon 60mm F2.8 AF micro it is okay, but not really up to snuff in my opinion.</p>

<p>According to some sources Nikon cameras have an intrusive noise reduction algorithm on long exposures which removes dim stars:<br>

http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm<br>

The solution is to turn the camera off at the end of the exposure proper, during the NR stage. It's a shame as it means you can't use the in camera intervalometer when present.<br>

The five exposures are stacked. It gives a better result - less noise - compared to one long exposure. I assume they were all the same duration, with the camera in manual exposure mode.<br>

The Astrotrac looks like the smallest, most convenient driven equatorial mount. Astrophotography is not easy, especially in a cold country such as the UK, where frozen extremities and condensation are real problems.</p>

<p>I should have added that Nikon have their own name for multi coatings, might be SIC (Super Integrated Coating). I'm sure the Nikon website will give the correct terms.</p>

<p>I believe multicoating originated form a collaboration between Pentax and Zeiss in the early 1970's.<br>

Nano coating is a quite different beast, and I think it is particularly suitable for strongly curved surfaces, as I am sure the links explain.</p>

<p>If PolishNikonService and nikon.org.pl are the names, then it is hardly surprising Nikon forced them to change the names, as most people would think those were official Nikon sites. I the same vein I would not be able to create a new company called "Nikon Camera Poland".</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2344388">Matt Laur</a> "For food? The 60/2.8. ... The 60/2.8 is certainly sharp, but doesn't have the most pleasing bokeh, if you like that creamy out of focus background look."<br>

I do agree with the first point made by Matt. But in my opinion the 60mm F2.8 AFS lens has good bokeh, including nice round highlights. The earlier 60mm F2.8 AFD lens has had bokeh, with angular highlights, and a busy appearance. Of course a background with lots of out of focus detail will always look cluttered, but the more recent lens will render it better.</p>