walterh

<p>In addition to that we have to pay 19% Tax here in Germany that should be included in the price of 650 €. So in the US when ordering mail order one may not have to pay sales tax at all.<br>

So the US sale price could be slightly below 800 US$.</p>

<p>Sad news - see this link.<br>

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=36017540</p>

<p>Good info about the vuescan driver, but just to add this:<br>

I hold licence for viewscan as well as Nikon and Silverfast but liked the vuescan software best with very few exceptions of film and individual images.</p>

<p>If you want "any" 50mm just to cover the focal length with a reasonably fast lens the AFD 50mm f1.8 is a must have lens because it is a great lens at a very low price.<br>

If you need to ask if you need the faster f1.4 lens you most likely do not need it.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>People tend to think when you have a camera like this you can work miracles. Not so! Its only as good as the person pushing the shutter. The camera was a gift from my husband, I don't think I would have purchased it for myself. I have it now, so I have to get use to it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Carol you learned a lot in a short time :-) Perhaps more than many people ever will. So in short you are on track and will master your camera soon. Go to amazon and get a book on basics of digital photography and you will be set soon. It is a challenge but it is fun as well and the learning is fast because you see the results immediately. Have fun.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Heres the thing My friend and I were doing the same exact shot one day and he had no flair and he shoots canon. Could it also just be the optics of Nikon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No it is not a brand issue it is a pilot error issue :-)<br>

You have to adapt to the conditions and make the best of it. For example standing elevated on a ladder and shooting down would solve the problem.<br>

OK I see that may have been too much trouble but perhaps there were some stairs leading into the park right there?<br>

Or perhaps turn around and shoot with the sun coming from your back?<br>

Or perhaps use a slight telephoto lens that would cut out the sky?<br>

Or use your hand to shade the lens in addition to the lens shade?<br>

Or perhaps shoot some other day? It really depends on the situation.<br>

You see the point? Since all shots on you card are for free you could just walk around and try different perspectives and experiment. This can be fun :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>one other thing you forgot, leslie, is effective focal length. DX has a huge advantage when a longer FL is required because of the 1.5x crop factor. so for wildlife, for instance, it's a huge plus, as a 400mm lens becomes a 600mm lens, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Focal length is focal length.</p>

<p>PLEASE stop confusing everybody by saying that the focal length changes if the format is changed!</p>

<p>This is not the case. <strong>If you crop an image you change the angle of view.</strong> That is all there is - no change in focal length. A 400 mm lens will not become a 600mm lens if one crops the image in the image circle produced by the lens. It also makes no difference either if this is done in post processing or by using a smaller sensor with a "crop factor" as compared to a larger format.</p>

<p>All that is changed is the crop and therefore the angle of view.<br>

If you need more info look here for example:<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view</p>

<p><em>Please do not take this personal - I know this is the way it is presented many times. Please use rather use the correct way of explanation.</em></p>

<p>Just an impression based on a short trial: Both lenses are excellent in terms of IQ but the Zeiss bokeh can be harsh. So it may be primarily a matter of taste and your application.</p>

<p>Perhaps your local store allows you a comparative shooting for say an hour? At least this is what local stores are all about?</p>

<p>There are other Zeiss lenses that I would go for first, like the macro planar lenses. One of these is the 50mm macro planar. But of course it is a bit slower. Do you need f1.4? How do you focus your f1.4 lens to the needed precision to use f1.4?</p>

<p>Richard thanks for looking it up.</p>

<p>Unfortunately the last link claims to supply the latest version but leads to version 2.9.7.0.<br>

I went there already. A direct google does not lead anywhere.<br>

Strange, I thought many people would have looked at the raw data of their NEF files.</p>

<p>John you can just measure the magnification factor.</p>

<p>Shoot a flat object at a right angle and make two exposures - one with a ruler and one just of your object.<br>

If both images are printed in the same way you can just measure the size of the scale on the ruler in the image by using the same ruler you used for shooting. The ratio of the (ruler image)/(ruler) is the magnification or reduction. The magnification is obviously the same for the image without the ruler. For enhanced precision you may have to control minor parameters as well.</p>

<p>If you shoot 2D objects at an angle you need to apply geometric corrections for the distance and lens aberrations. For 3D objects you may not want to know :-)</p>

<p>In case you really need a "standard" as used in science and technology you need to contact your government's institute of standards. Just for a ratio this is obviously not needed since the same object is used in the image and as object for comparison.</p>

<p>BTW: Starting from "formats" like 24mm x 36mm film or digital sensor is not a good idea. If you read the fine print in your camera manual or measure the exposed area on your film you may notice that the actual size of the exposed area of film or the sensor area may not be exactly this size. And in principle there is no difference between film or digital sensor but the devil is in detail. For example film may not be perfectly flat and the film plane may be different from day to day e.g. in different environment or if the film was transported recently or a long time ago.</p>

<p>The topic is still important today in documentation photography. For general shooting people usually could not care less :-)</p>

<p>What happened to RAWNALYZE and its programmer?<br>

The link that worked for some time changed:<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cryptobola.com/PhotoBola/Rawnalyze.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cryptobola.com/PhotoBola/Rawnalyze.htm</a><br>

Is there any site where one can still download the last version? It must be a 2.10xx version possibly 2.10.4.<br>

If not what is the latest version available?<br>

Cheers<br>

Walter</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My two choices are: nikkor 17-35 2.8 or nikkor 24-70 2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Joao these are different ranges of focal length both at the wide end and also on the long end. I would suggest to decide on the focal length needed. Only you know what would be best for you. Obviously the 24-70 is more universal and many shoot some 90% of their images with just this lens on a FX body.</p>

<p>In terms of mechanical and optical quality both lenses are excellent, the 24-70 a slight bit more than excellent in IQ, especially contrast. There are many threads on this topic.</p>

<p>Chances are that a used 17-35 might be easier to obtain for a good price than the 24-70 since quite a few sold this lense and got the 14-24 to go with the 24-70 as a set together with the 70-200.</p>

<p>The 17-35 fits well with the 24-70 in case you want one of these later. For some occasions the overlap in range is useful. While the 14-24 is a very impressive lens it is more extreme than the 17-35 and while (perhaps a minority still) quite a few photographers prefer the 17-35 over the 14-24 (also my choice). This is not only a bit larger but also got a very bulky front element and cannot accept regular filters.</p>

<p>You see it is a win win situation - which ever lens you prefer you will end up with a great lens :-)</p>

<p>Christopher - your original idea to measure a white spot and then expose by setting exposure to obtain an almost white is quite correct. There may be some fine tuning needed but the logic is simple and there is no problem in the logic here.</p>

<p>The problem is in the raw image conversion, assuming that you shoot raw,the only way to attack this problem properly (because the in camera conversion to jpg images is a black box and may be misleading).</p>

<p>Depending on your raw converter you can get misleading results.</p>

<p>You need to look at the "original" data in the RGB values of the pixels. There is software available to do this but this is complex and as a start it may be suffient to let us know how you convert your raw files.</p>

<p>Brooks is right. If files are deleted from a card the "deletion" should only be a flag raised in the directory that the file is "deleted". Nothing else is changed and the file should actually be still in its original place on the card. Just the operating system does not show its presence since it is flagged as deleted.</p>

<p>So if you continue using the card the operating system will use this "free" space and may overwrite this space.</p>

<p>If this does not happen it is a simple task for a recovery program to just remove the "flag" and the file will show up again.<br>

Your card may have come with a utility software to recover files in such circumstances.</p>

<p>Igor you get a good idea about prices for used lenses at KEH.com.<br>

You may get cheaper deals at ebay but KEH got a great reputation.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It simply does not work like any other imaging software you have ever used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the best characterization I ever read in those hundreds of threads pro/contra NX1/NX2 versus "others":-)<br>

I can fully agree on this and I have used many types of imaging software from the very beginning of digital imaging.</p>

<p>There is only one way to find out if you like the "very special" way of this piece of software and if it is worth the struggle or not - you will have to try it out. It certainly will be a mind expanding experience and you will even more appreciate well written and stable software as well as a well designed user interface from "all the other" software producers :-)</p>

<p>(I hope you do not mind my sense of humor.)</p>

<p>Nevertheless I do what was mentioned above - I use NX2 for rare cases where NX2 gives slightly better results. Right now after the latest release from Adobe this may well be only the moire removal in critical cases, but I have yet to try if this is still a remaining case for NX2.<br>

Older versions of Adobe camera RAW were slightly less efficient in noise removal at high ISO images during conversion.</p>

<p>Lee sharpness is a visual illusion and harder to test for than resolution and contrast.<br>

So to test for sharpness is better done using a resolution test target.</p>

<p>Luckily the difference between the newer zoom and the 20mm lens is so obvious that a test under ideal conditions is not really needed.<br>

Yes the zoom is better in sharpness than the zoom in the near distance where the zoom is at best. I rarely used both lenses stopped down a lot so it is a bit surprising (but not totally off) that the difference is so large at f9. But you may want to test if this is symmetrical. Some of the 20mm AFD lenses I saw were not perfectly centered.<br>

I would only prefer this prime for size and price over the excellent zoom (for DX).<br>

If you are after better performance shooting against the light the older AIS 20mm f3.5 is better.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Gunnar could this be an access rights problem?</p>

<p>It seems to be a problem of writing the file. If the space is there access rights seem an obvious candidate.<br>

I noticed something similar with different software when I moved from Win XP to Vista 64. This was an MS office problem. The plugin used to convert MS office files to PDF and then store these files had problems to get the access right for storage. Resolved after some time but very disturbing at the time since I was under time pressure, the entire project was finished and I "just" had to convert the file to PDF for submission ^^.</p>

<p>You could try to select another output , say a network drive or memory stick or a folder on your computer with free access to write for everybody.<br>

Just a thought.<br>

Good luck.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jacy both work in different ways.<br>

1) A white (or gray) lens cap measures the light that reaches your camera. You point it into the direction of the light that shines onto your target. So you pretend to be in the place of the target. Very useful if you cannot get close to your target or place a color checker card next to your target.<br>

2) A gray card (or similar object) is placed close to your target (e.g. included in a test shot)so that is reflects the incoming light as closely as possible.</p>

<p>So in short it will be good to have both types of tool available to be prepared for the upcoming situation.<br>

Be aware that most objects you image are not two dimensional. Very often there is more than one light source from one direction (like the sun) or more than one type of light sources with identical spectra.<br>

For example a person is 3D and if there is more than one light source chances are that the light from different angles are of different color temperature. If you try to determine this by using a two dimensional card or lens cap you will get errors. Even a spherical object on your lens can be misleading since it will integrate the light sources. A spherical gray object placed next to your target will show you different reading for the different light sources and directions. Not necessarily a solution but it gives you information about the light sources.<br>

A person in sunlight might be illuminated by one light source. But it may sit next to a red wall on one side and next to a green bush on the other side. So you got three light sources. If you can determine the correct WB for each side of the person it is still a tough decision to choose the WB since there is no "correct" WB.<br>

This may be confusing but it shows that a basic understanding and a good look at the scene are the best tools :-)<br>

A simple Kleenex in the right spot can be a better tool than a magic best ever "nano - high tech tool" for a lot of money. This is not to say that a calibrated tool like X-Rite color checker does not work better than a simple sheet of paper. But a simple tool used correctly works better than a pro tool (or self acclaimed pro tool) used in the wrong way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Find a quality lab to scan for you. It will be much cheaper and more effective for you than getting high end digital equipment that really isn't up to what you're asking it to do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steven this is a suggestion that is too often overlooked.<br>

But it depends on the number of images one shoots. For a low volume this is always an excellent alternative, especially if one is able to use lens and back movements for landscapes. If larger numbers of images are used the cost of film (plus follow up costs) quickly exceeds a digital MF back. Use a fine tip pencil and do the calculation for your application. Of course large numbers of MF digital images require more capable computing and storage as well as backup power that is also expensive.</p>

<p>Shun I see a new (for me ) and unexpected sense of humor coming from your side :-P</p>

<p>Henry thanks for posting here once in a while (and presumably reading often .-).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Let me first eliminate the D300 + 24-70mm option. The 24-70mm is not the optimal range for DX format.<br>

The really first question to ask as you will see from the hundreds of similar threads if you really want to go for FX or if DX is the better choice for you.<br>

For example a D300 plus a 17-55mm Nikkor f2.8 might be a good alternative. Add a 70-200mm VRI used and you got a nice set to start with. This would cover almost all your "purpose" except extreme wide angle.<br>

In case you really want FX and D700 for example for the larger viewfinder you might consider the 24-70mm f2.8 plus a few used MF primes such as the Nikkor 105mm AI f2.5 or the 50-135mm zoom f3.5.<br>

For your applications you would probably not need the better low noise performance of FX at high ISO. Of course this depends on the conflict of "Purpose" versus "Wants" above.</p>

<p>There are millions of possibilities and almost as many threads .-)<br>

BTW- you already own an excellent tripod? If sharpness is #1 on your list your tripod should be as good or better than your lens and camera ^^.</p>

<p> </p>