Two23

You would be better off with just D7100 and a 17-50mm f2.8 lens for what you are doing. Kent in SD

For weddings you need faster lenses, such as the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. That is the priority. I used to use two D7100 to do weddings and they worked fine. Spending more money on a camera than a lens is almost always a mistake, and especially so here. I will add that not to knock any of the posters above, but none so far have mentioned doing weddings. I did over a dozen with the D7100 (all paid, not for family/friends.) There is no way I'd choose a d7200 with a kit lens over a D7100 with Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens for doing weddings. You really need the speed of an f2.8 lenses most of the time. I will also add that only having ONE camera to shoot weddings is very foolish (if you are being paid for this.) Cameras break, get stolen, lost all the time. Kent in SD

Nikon seems to be really stumbling in its ability to come up with a viable small camera system. I would think they could create something nice using the M43 platform. That way they would not have to immediately be diverting resources into new lenses too, and M43 has certainly taken hold. You know things aren't going well in Nikon Land when a 22 yr. Nikon user like me hasn't been interested in any of the new Nikon product for the past year, but I am very excited about the rumored Sigma 14mm f1.8! Kent in SD

No, no! Those who use modern film cameras are heathens and they will only corrupt us with their ways! Kent in SD

I've never had much luck doing much of anything with mozilla. I erased it from all my devices. Kent in SD

1. That's the way it's always been. 2. It's the weekend. Maybe they're out taking photos? Kent in SD

<p>To see if a camera has been used, I first look at the tripod socket, then where a neck strap attaches, and finally the film rewind. If this thing has truly never been used and it still has the box etc., I would not buy it. You are paying a premium for a mint display camera. I try to buy camera gear that is near mint--obviously used a little but very few marks etc. Since I do indeed take the things out and shoot with them, I don't want to decrease the value of a truly mint camera. Those are for very anal people who want something perfect and will park it on a shelf.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>All three Bessa--Bessa RF, Bessa II, Bessa III have coupled rangefinders. These became popular about 1935. As for the Super Ikonta, I own the "A model, which is 4.5x6. There are two things I don't like about it: (1) the Albada finder doesn't really work any more (2) the camera is very "fiddly" to use. <br> I have a nice little collection of folding cameras, most are 6x9. They include: 1914 Kodak Special No.1, 1928 ICA Cocarette Luxus (gorgeous!), 1928 Voigtlander Bergheil, 1935 Bessa, 1937 Bessa RF, 1938 Super Ikonta C. Of these, the Bessa RF is the easiest to use and gives me the image quality I want. </p> <p>Kent in SD</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Rereading all the posts above, I do think your best choice is going to be the Kodak Medalist II. It has a superb coated Heliar type lens. This was one of the best cameras Kodak ever made--it was a premium model. Some pro photographers of the era used them.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Isn't the Bessa III actually 6x7--not 6x9? I have the original 1937 Bessa RF and really like it. It is a full 6x9. My camera has an uncoated Heliar lens. I do think the Heliar lens is the reason to buy a Bessa. Another good choice is the Kodak Medalist 6x9. It too has a Heliar design lens.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>It wouldn't bother me in the least.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I have the 20mm f1.8G and rarely have CA problems. When I do see some, it is in the corners.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I regularly shoot Brownies and vintage folding cameras from 1904-1928, all of them 120. You do need to cover the red window. I generally use black tape for this, but have also taken the end flap from the film box and colored it black using a felt marker, and taped that over the window.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I will add that the 18-55mm lens with VR would probably be a big help to you, if you are shooting at shutter speeds slower than 1/250s and not using a tripod.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I think I have a better idea and will go the other way. Instead of a new lens, what about another camera? A used D7100 paired with your existing lens will give you a 450mm performance with 24mp, and it's lighter than the D750. If you are going on nice trips, I would be astonished if you weren't bringing a back up camera. A D7100 would easily fit that need. Instead of a second "all in one" camera that won't work with your existing lenses, a D7100 would work with your current lenses when your D750 gets stolen/dropped off a cliff/sensor scratched from dust. As bonus you would have better image quality than from one of those all in one small cameras. A used D5300 is even smaller but still has the 24mp sensor. Af is not quite as fast though, but still significantly better than the small all in one cameras.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>This is the time of year to buy used--prices are at their yearly low. Pretty much all the photo gear I have was bought used. A used D7100 body is running $450 -$500 on ebay, and a used D5300 is $300-350. Prices will begin edging back up some time in March. Either camera will do what you want. The D5300 is smaller and has the swivel screen. The D7100 has a faster autofocus and will probably produce less noisy jpegs (if you are shooting NEF there might not be any difference.) Depends on your budget, but I would not buy new. With a used one, someone else has already taken the several hundred $$ hit on depreciation.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I would buy a used D5300. There's very little difference between it and D500. Certainly not enough to justify the $$ difference. The D5300 will give you an LCD screen.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>What I would do is first get the light evened out. For the size you are talking about, I'd want about 2-4 monolights for lighting. Monolights have a MUCH MUCH bigger area of coverage, and by diffusing and then overlapping them I can get very even lighting. Second is the lens. The very obvious choice here is the Nikon 24mm PC-E. Take three shots with it--shifted left, centered, shifted right. Then using Photoshop CC stitch the three together. This lens will give you perfect stitches every time with no distortion. A shifted 24mm PC-E will easily handle this. Anyway, if one of my customers hired me to do this project that's how I would do it.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>There are kind of fun to use. I bought one last year and took some shots for a presentation I did for my camera club, "What I Learned From Crappy Lenses!" Below shot used a Nikon 18-55mm VR kit lens with an attachment, shot on a Nikon D800E.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p> <div></div>

<p>For what you are wanting to shoot, I'd suggest the Nikon 50mm f1.2 AiS. I use that lens on a Nikon F3T and love it. </p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>My Ross Petzval is a 5 inch FL, and designed for quarter plate. Back in their time period the practice was to crop away everything that wasn't sharp. About the center half to two thirds of a Petzval image is fairly sharp, and that drops off quickly. For larger formats, such as whole plate, the lenses had to be quite large. During the Civil War there were only two kinds of lenses: Petzval (four elements) and achromatic doublet (two elements.) The Petzval was by far the preferred portrait lens partly because it was quite fast (f3.5) and this required many fewer seconds for subjects to sit still (wet plate ISO = 0.5.) The achromatic doublet was f11 to f22 and very slow. It did give much more DoF, of course. Starting in the 1850s f-stops were devised to stop the lenses down. Initially these were washers--metal disks with a hole in the center. You focused, unscrewed the lens, inserted a disk, and then screwed the lens back together to take your shot. About 1860 a guy named Waterhouse invented a system where a slot was cut into the top center of the lens, and metal tabs with a hole were inserted into the lens. My Ross Petzval predates both. I do have about six other lenses 1850-1865 that have either washer stops or Waterhouse stops. The Petzval was the first choice for portraits from 1840 to ~1900. In 1865 the rapid rectilinear lens (four elements, f8) was invented and it replaced the achromatic doublet.</p> <p>As for the WW2 mannequins, the museum owner who was giving my dad a personal tour said these were custom made with faces replicated from photos seen in the defining book on the subject: "Auschwitz: The Story of a Transport"*. He said the facial expressions on commercially available dummies were much to bland or happy. This museum is a stickler for accuracy. They have a D-Day Omaha Beach exhibit, and the sand was shipped in from Omaha Beach.</p> <p>Kent in SD<br /> *This is an astonishing book, the sort you will not be able<br /> to put down. The images will haunt you for weeks. I would <br /> say it's a collection of the most emotionally impacting <br /> photos ever made. Available for online viewing:<br /> http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/album_auschwitz/index.asp?WT.mc_id=200960&WT.cg_n=g.en<br /> --->Do not look through the photos before going to bed.</p><div></div>

<p>Going by the edge to edge sharpness, I'm guessing this was made with a modern lens. You did catch a nice scene. We have few if any WW2 re-enactments here, but Civil War re-enactments are fairly popular. I shoot those with a 4x5 and Petzval lenses made either 1850s or early 1860s. Below photo is of General Custer at Ft. Sisseton, SD. Photo taken with an 1845 Ross Petzval on Efke 25 4x5.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<p>An exhibit at a regional WW2 museum. Shot with a Leica IIIc vintage 1942, Leica 5cm Elmar vintage 1932, HP5. This is the kind of scene that I just don't think a digital camera would give the same impact.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<p>I have an F3T. It doesn't seem to eat batteries, but what you describe does sound like a dead battery to me.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I've shot both cameras; own two D800E. In reality there is no discernible difference in image quality between the cameras. So, I saved myself about $2K and kept using the D800E bodies.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p>