walterh

<p>Good news to get one at a reasonable price after x-mas :-)</p>

<p>The only thing you might miss when keeping the 55 macro lens would be the speed of f1.8.<br>

I would keep the lens for at least a few hundred shots until you know what exactly you need.</p>

<p>Ty well a raw file is not an uncooked file but a file of raw data. So in a sense a raw file does not make more sense than a RAW file.</p>

<p>I agree with you that RAW is not a file format and raw files can be in a number of different file formats. Good point to mention this. E.g. the Nikon files that contain raw data from a Nikon camera are stored in the file format of *.nef files. So NEF files are in the file format that Nikon uses for (more or less unprocessed) raw data from Nikon cameras.</p>

<p>So I hope we do not confuse Amanda by typing RAW instead of "files that contain raw data". The file is not really in a raw, perhaps uncooked or in some other way unfinished file.</p>

<p>Please Ty do not take this too serious just another try to prevent confusion like you already did. I guess i am just as lazy typing as many others are using RAW to describe raw image data obtained from a camera body with almost no processing.<br>

Now did I confuse more or less? :-)</p>

<p>So why not look at the data?<br>

1) Download and install ImageJ<br>

2) Convert a NEF file into 16bit tif in your "normal" way.<br>

3) Crop to an area where you see the effect the most.<br>

4) load the cropped image into ImageJ<br>

5) Place a line at right angle across the "steps"<br>

6) Create a profile plot along the line<br>

7) Look at the profile if it shows any visible steps.<br>

This will give you a starting point to either go upstream or downstream in image processing to identify the cause of the problem.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@Dave<br>

Sunil sorry for the interruption but Dave I think I took a shot of the exact same bird at the exact same location (well almost same bird^^).<br>

The bird is a rare species: Fry Catcher :-P<br>

http://whschroeder.com/html/animals_9.html</p>

<p>VRI versus VRII version.<br>

While you are not supposed to believe everything you read in the www - you may also think about it if you always need the best and most expensive tool.<br>

A VRI 70-200 lens is still a good lens for many applications. On safari it may give you better images than a VRII version if you use it at home because you cannot afford the safari :-P<br>

Or perhaps you better spend the money on a better tripod? There are times when VR is less important than a good tripod :-)</p>

<p>For what I shoot the VRI version is plenty of lens. Most of the time I am the limiting factor not the lens but of course there are better photographers out there. On the other hand you may just need the better IQ for what you shoot.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ian I see no further drop in price. Who still owns a film body of any good technical quality will keep it at current prices.<br>

OK I guess from my own feelings. I still own an F90X and an F100. Both good cameras for film. The F90 was a working horse and the F100 is just beautiful. I bought it almost unused at a low price just to have it for occasional BW film shooting using silver based film. However I rather keep them than sell them for almost nothing. If I find a person I like who is going to use film I will rather give the bodies away as presents than to sell at current rates.<br>

So far I found many people I like but none of these is going to use film :-)<br>

Still have my film development equipment in the same place (unused except for occasional BW silver film) where I left it after last use since D70 days^^.<br>

BW cost me almost nothing since I can use 30m film cut to pieces and home made mix of chemicals for development. Waste disposal will be a problem once I have no access anymore to silver recycling in the near future.<br>

Color negatives are very expensive since for excellent quality I have to buy expensive chemicals or send to a pro lab.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The only way to find out if the posterisation is present in the raw files is to analyse the data.<br>

The second best approach to the original data and easiest is to convert NEF to 16bit tif files and then to analyse the data by looking at the numbers. Or using some quantitative software like "imageJ" (free software) that will allow to show line profiles of the data along a selected line in the image.<br>

Until proven otherwise I bet that the banding is some posterisation either during post processing or when inspecting the images on a monitor . A "typical" monitor can only display 8bit resolution per color channel. One can easiliy run out of color resolution. And you are not the only one to see this - you are in a large number of people :-)<br>

So even if your files are perfect using a monitor may downsample your perfect sky into visible steps of blue.<br>

The above suggestion to look at prints is a valid one - if the effect is not visible on prints it is the monitor or post processing for monitor viewing. But if the effect is visible on prints we still do not know and one has to quantitatively analyze the images.</p>

<p>Amanda get and read this book:<br>

"Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CSx" - x is the version of PS.<br>

<br /><br>

Get the current version to be up to date or get an older used one to save some money.<br>

Amazon might be a good source for the book. Any larger bookstore should also have it in stock.<br>

<br /><br>

It will give you all you need to know about RAW conversion in the best way.<br>

Looking up internet fora is not a bad idea but this cannot replace a good book.<br>

<br /><br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess for many USA residents maybe now with the ease of postal that they just send it overseas - LOL.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But shipping cost from USA to other countries can be extremely high. So for pro gear that may be OK.</p>

<p>Sorry no direct comparison. But since direct comparison may be rare I will say something about the Micro Nikkor 70-180 in case you do not know all about it yet.<br>

I got several macro lenses and this is the lens I use when I need to change the field of view rapidly. I often shoot small kitten and believe me these are quite fast. Not much luck with any prime lens. Not a real macro situation but the lens is still great to use in close range. It also does "OK" near ininity.<br>

When I can use a prime and use f-stops below f11 then I prefer a prime (e.g. 55mm AIS f3.5 or 2.8 Nikkor, 90mm Tamron, 105mm Kiron, 100mm Zeiss or 150mm Sigma - the well known top list) because the resolution is slightly better. At f11 or smaller aperture resolution drops down with all macro lenses so the difference will be small.<br>

This is on a D3, a body with higher resolution sensor like the D300s or D3x may be more diffraction limited in resolution.<br>

Bokeh of the Nikon zoom is good but the most spectacular is what you get from the Zeiss 100mm f2.0. For me one other good reason to get this lens.<br>

The contrast of the Nikkor zoom is not as good as the recent 105mm f2.8 VR but this is not a big problem if you shoot raw. The working distance at 180mm is more like that of a 100mm lens.<br>

In short the Nikkor 70-180 is excellent if you need a zoom and do not need the working distance of a 180mm lens.</p>

<p>Different format are what they are: different formats. Not necessarily different quality for a given application.<br>

Smaller formats got advantages just like larger formats.<br>

Find out what your application is and decide from there.<br>

For example if you shoot more wildlife and need the reach of a 500mm lens on FX it may be worth a try to use a 300mm lens on a DX body. You might be happier with 300mm f2.8 at DX than with a 500mm f 4.0 on FX. Also considering size, weight and cost.</p>

<p>Sounds like your D200 has a problem.<br>

Did you call Nikon to hear their suggestions?</p>

<p>Raden what a beautiful bird!<br>

Was this shot in SE Asia? I think I saw one of these once but was to far away to be certain or to photograph it.</p>

<p>You could use neutral gray filters on your lenses instead :-)</p>

<p>Come on do you really want an opinion? Take off all pol filters and use the lens hoods.<br>

I agree that there are occasions where a pol filter can improve a shot but to keep pol filters on all lenses almost all the time is a bit - let me say "unusual".<br>

Sell some of your pol filters on ebay and for the money get a used larger bag that will accomodate the lenses with hoods parked in reverse.<br>

Using lens hoods most of the time is far more sensible than using pol filters most of the time. A hood improves IQ of your lenses in many circumstances not only in harsh sun light. Lens hoods can protect your lenses and you can read about pro and con in hundreds of threads so there is no reason to repeat this here. But if you want to use a protective filter use a lens hood in addition because you got one more reason to use a lens hood.</p>

<p>And the F100 is just a great little camera :-)<br>

And it can make use of filum as wellum.</p>

<p>Robert just keep shooting increasing the exposure from shot to shot.<br>

From complete black I would start by adding at least two stops.<br>

At some point the exposure will be right as you can check on the LCD.<br>

O course you could do this by exposure bracketing. No harm if you need to throw away many underexposed images afterwards. Cost is the same :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Leon if you shoot using different light sources with very different color temperatures such as flash and cloudy sky or a mixture of indoor lights near windows you will not be able to get a "precise" white balance because there is no "precise" WB.</p>

<p>Different parts of the image will get more light from one or the other light source and therefore WB is different for different parts of the image. A person may get different light from different angles for example. If the image is important enough to justify the work one can use different WB locally within one image during post processing.</p>

<p>The best way to go would be to set all light sources to the same color temperature using appropriate filters. Obviously this is easier with a filter for the flash than for the sky ^^. In large indoor spaces you also face the problem that the artificial light source may change with the power line cyvle of 50Hz or 60Hz. This can show up as lines of varying colors in the image and cannot be solved using filters but using longer or shorter exposure times (+filters).</p>

<p>So set WB to automatic or as close as possible to the natural light and use compensating filters for flashes and other lights (e.g. in a studio).</p>

<p>Flashes are expexted to be near 6000K but my nikon SB800 is more near 5800. Different output power of the flash will also have an influence on the color temperature (it shuld not but it does).</p>

<p>Using a SB800 for fill flash in slight overcast sunlight works for not so critical work without filters.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.<br>

Cheers<br>

Walter</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the title is not correct.</p>

<p>The fastest way would be to short the battery :-)</p>

<p>I suspect that accidentally the battery went dead before you unplugged the charger.</p>

<p>Ray why ask here - for example I do not know in what corner of the world you buy or live, travel and need service from.</p>

<p>I also think people here might perhaps know but not better than Nikon seller.<br>

Nikon service in that country could not care less about answers you quote from photo.net :-)<br>

Why not ask the people you buy from and let us know the details.</p>

<p>I personally used Nikon service very little but when I had international warranty I had no problem to get free service here in Germany from Nikon independent from the location of shopping.</p>

<p>So if you need service here in Germany come and give me a call and while waiting for the repair we have a "Kölsch" beer :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well later lenses than D lenses are actually also D type lenses.<br>

"D" just gives distance info to the body.<br>

AFS lenses should work just fine on the D700.<br>

I would send the lens and body in to Nikon for service.<br>

Such a nice lens should work properly.<br>

Call ahead if you should send in other lenses with the body as well.</p>