raczoliver

I think you should buy gear to use it and not think of it as an investment. Whatever you buy, the resale value will probably be insignificant, hence you should buy gear that you are presumably going to use for a long time and will get value out of it while you are using it, as opposed to when you are no longer using it.

No kidding, I used the bicycle light that I do night riding with at its brightest setting, and put it right against the rubber eyepiece. Hardly representative of any situation I could realistically find myself taking pictures in.

I just tried it too with my D850, but my results weren't as good as yours. ISO 64, f/5.6, aperture priority, lens cap on, shine flashlight in viewfinder. In viewfinder mode the shutter speed goes from 30'' and more than three stops underexposed to 1/1600. In live view it goes to 2'',and there is also an obvious glow visible on the LCD. So why do some camera manuals tell you to cover the viewfinder for live view photography, while others (the majority, it seems) don't?

I guess you're making valid points there. In practice, my formal portraits are all taken with studio strobes, which means manual exposure mode. The other scenario that I sometimes find myself in is landscape photography, when I have the composition set up and would stand there for an hour or so, taking several pictures in the changing light. Again, I would probably be using live view to set up the shot, acquire focus etc., leave the camera in manual exposure mode, check exposure every few shots by reviewing the histogram and adjust as necessary. In short, light entering the viewfinder has never been an issue for me in practice.

Edit: Ok, I just recalled that there is a function on the D850 called "silent live view photography", which I turned on right after I bought the camera and never turned it off after that. That might be what makes the difference, the mirror definitely doesn't move before taking a shot in live view, it is completely silent.

I remember the D700 doing that in "hand-held live view" mode. The D850 doesn't. Perhaps the Df does, that's why the manual tells you to cover the eye piece. Neither the D850's, nor the D810's manual does.

I'm not sure I understand. In reflex-viewing mode I actually have to be looking through the viewfinder to see what I'm photographing, don't I? Most of the times I use live view when on a tripod, and even if not, most likely I have the exposure mode and ISO set to manual, in which case exposure is not going to change after I move away from the camera and light enters through the viewfinder. Or are you saying it leaks light around the mirror while the exposure is being taken?

The only time I actually used the viewfinder shutter was when I changed the eyepiece on my D700. You have to close it before you can unscrew the eyepiece.

They're there for self-timer mode. That's a common function of all those cameras, unlike live view, which only the D810 has.

I also don't see how not covering the viewfinder would influence exposure when the mirror is up, blocking any light's way through the viewfinder (that's why it's all black when you look inside). In effect, the mirror is doing the job of blocking the path already, so it shouldn't be necessary to block it with one more layer. I am surprised that the Df manual instructs the user to do that, it doesn't seem to make sense, or at least I don't understand it, but undoubtedly there are many things I don't understand. The manual for the D850 doesn't mention using the viewfinder eyepiece shutter for live view photography, and I've never heard of that being beneficial before.

Funny, the D850 manual skips this step when writing about live view: Live View Photography On the other hand, it gets mentioned at the part about the self-timer mode: Self-Timer Mode

I remember getting a clip-on viewfinder cover with some of my film SLRs, which obviously did not have live view. I think the purpose is to prevent stray light from throwing off the meter reading when using auto-exposure and the photographer's head is not blocking the viewfinder, such as when using the self-timer.

I think you are comparing lighting conditions rather than cameras here. I also much prefer the second image, probably because it is closer to what I consider properly exposed. Also, the background is less busy, the light is flatter, and the color temperature slightly colder. I would, however, shift the tint towards magenta slightly. I'm saying all this while viewing on my smartphone. The cat's posture is also different, with its torso sideways in the first picture, and more head-on in the second one, falling more out of focus, which is perhaps part of what you are referring to as expected at f/1.4.

I got the adapter yesterday. I ended up ordering a version that has up to 10° tilt and 10 mm shift movements built in on perpendicular planes (Nikon style), so I can make use of the extra image circle that the medium format lenses project. Now I have three tilt/shift lenses, albeit none particularly wide angle. The shutter is forced open by activating timed exposure using the dedicated lever on the lens, and the shutter released manually using the knobs on the lens mount before mounting the lens on the adapter. This way the aperture is stopped down so I can control exposure and even get stop down TTL metering (no matrix), which is grossly off with tilt or shift movements, but works fine while centered. The focus confirmation dot also works, even with lens movements.

Thanks! Actually, I do have a D850 :-) The problem with the aperture is that unlike Nikkor lenses, even with the lens off the camera, the aperture stays wide open while I rotate the aperture ring, and is only stopped down when I push the DOF preview lever.

I came across this adapter and thought it would be a good way to make some use of my Bronica lenses on Nikon bodies: Fotodiox Pro Lens Mount Adapter - Bronica SQ Mount Lens to Nikon F Mount SLR Camera Body I have a few doubts about how this would work, though. The Bronica lenses that this adapter was made for have a leaf shutter. Would that stay open when I mount the lens on this adapter? Also, how would one stop down the aperture for the exposure? Would I have to keep the DOF preview lever on the lens depressed while I take the exposure? Any clarification would be appreciated.

We are talking about 2008-2010 AD, right? The one that was ten years ago? Was it that much different from now? I'm looking at my pictures from that time, and apart from the fact that I (hopefully) became a slightly better photographer, not sure much has changed. I suggest that instead of looking at cameras from that time, try to recreate the feel of the subject. Think of what defined those years for you and try to recreate that. I was using a Nikon D80 between 2006-2012, and a Panasonic LX something compact camera. Sure, they are dated by today's standards, but I don't think the pictures coming out of them were fundamentally different from today's cameras. It's not like "the quality was so 2000's". What might have been different were the environment, clothes, styling, and perhaps post-production trends. But again, we're talking about one decade ago. That's not such a long time. Despite being an amateur photographer, it's usually sounds (music) and smells that make me nostalgic rather than sights.

I used the AF-D version (actually, it might even have been a non-D) for a long time, mostly for landscapes, because at apertures larger than around f/4 sharpness started to degrade, and the bokeh looked unpleasant to my eyes. It was a great lens at smaller apertures, though. The AF-S version has largely mitigated those problems, and I feel comfortable using that at any aperture. In my opinion the AF-S 85mm f/1.8 lens represents excellent value for its price. I was slightly disappointed that the AF-S 50mm f/1.8 was not such an obvious improvement over its AF-D counterpart.

I've been using the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S (not the older D, which is supposedly a far inferior lens) for a couple of years on the D850. It is light, compact, and relatively inexpensive, but not tack sharp towards the edges at any aperture. However, based on other people's experiences, it appears the bulkier and more expensive 16-35 f/4 is not much better, if at all. The 18-35 is certainly very usable and good value for its price. I have recently started giving higher priority to portability over optical perfection, and overall this lens suits me well. For better sharpness and low light performance I would consider the 20, 24, 28 or 35mm f/1.8 primes, but those are... well, not zooms. If you don't mind the bulk and price, the 14-24 f/2.8 is supposedly the best wide angle zoom lens for F mount.

This announcement came out of the blue. They should have announced it in advance.

"It’s possible to disable the import feature, and then use the Photos app simply as a way of browsing images that exist outside of the Photos Library package. This technique is useful if you prefer to arrange your images into the folders and subfolders of your choosing, for example if you already have a ‘Photos’ folder that contains all of your snaps, neatly divided into sub-folders, then you can disable the import feature and use Photos simply as an image-viewing app, not all that dissimilar to Preview." This is probably what I would do. Even better would be a program that can organize your photos automatically according to your pre-defined rules based on metadata such as time, location, project name etc. Less opportunity for errors. Interestingly, there are a number of music library management software that can do this, but I have not yet come across a photography equivalent. Capture One can export the original files and organize the copies automatically according to rules you define, but a copy is made in every case, and it does not organize your current library in such a manner.

I'm with rodeo_joe on this one. If there is any way to tell the program where to organize your files, do it. If not, feel free to use it to view or edit your pictures, but for the purpose of long term storage, you need to be able to find your data on the computer without the help of anything more than a file browser or command shell. Sorry I can't give you any advice on how to solve your current problem, I don't even use a Mac, but it might be something to consider for the future, to avoid getting yourself into this situation again when your photos contain years' worth of work or memories.

The picture was taken at 1/1250s. 1/250s would reduce the ISO compared to that, but you're right, not as much as 1/60s would. Indeed, motion blur is not a problem in the original image that was taken at a shutter speed of 1/1250s. I am implying that it might be at 1/60s. I was simply trying to say that using a longer shutter speed was a good idea, but I wouldn't go as far as 1/60s, because that might introduce new problems.

I would say with a lens of this size, a tripod always helps. At least you don't have to hold all that equipment with your muscles. I agree that the picture is sharp, but noisy, and the focus is not completely where I would want it to be. Focusing on anything at f/1.4 is a challenge, and at the resolution of the D850 and such shallow depth of fields, I would not consider a person stationary by any means, even if they tried to stay in one spot. Just breathing normally will produce enough movement that things will move out of focus. So 1/60s shutter speed would be too slow too, even from a tripod, unless you really are photographing a steady subject, which, as we established, a human being is not. That being said, I think you could get away with around 1/250 or so, allowing you to drop the ISO a few stops, reducing the noise on the final image. Getting more light and stopping down slightly would help even more.

Looks like there was a layer of glass in front of the lens, perhaps with some condensation or grease on it. Maybe a window or a UV filter? Or perhaps the front element of the lens was not clean? Since you said you just started doing photography, we should also clarify that you are not surprised by the blurriness of the out of focus areas in front of and behind the tree. Those are meant to be blurry.