pge

<p>Are the streaks both on the negative and the print?</p> <p>If the streaks are on the negative, do they appear as part of the photo or can you see that the film has been streaked? I`m not sure I asked this very well.</p>

<p>Here is a discussion that I started about this lens in 2011. Bjorn Rorslett also commented.</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YqTh</p>

<p>Looking at your exposure numbers from the past and today it seems like your son is now playing in a much better lit facility. I agree with you that a D3 or D700 has no problem with iso 2000. Couldn't you just shoot raw to avoid your concerns about AWB?</p>

<p>The issue here, consistent exact focus, may not be solved with a different lens. f1.4 is a difficult aperture to achieve consistent exact focus regardless of the quality of the lens. I would want to know more about Robert's technique before I suggested spending money to solve the problem. f1.4 is a pretty thin. Just swaying a bit on your feet can kick f1.4 out of exact focus.</p>

<p>Try this method <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1187247">LINK</a> and compare your results.</p>

<p>I know you are not asking for opinions on the concept but isn't a monopod too short? Wouldn't a light stand give you more options?</p>

<blockquote> <p>(though I hate the AF switch being on the left hand)</p> </blockquote> <p>I had to get used to this when I changed from a D700 to D800 but I actually ended up preferring it. To each his own.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Or the highly rated Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $300.</p> </blockquote> <p>Interesting, I had never heard of this lens. Yet given the price of a Nikon 35mm f1.8 I think I would stick with the Nikon.</p>

<p>I have the older Sigma 12-24, not the greatest lens but lots of fun. I find that I do not use wide very often so I wanted to stay budget aware. The Sigma did the trick. It is seriously wide.</p>

<p>The 18-70mm DX G is a very good lens for likely under $200 used. It is not VR but in my experience VR is not necessary or even helpful until around 85mm or 105mm. I would add the 35mm f1.8 that Wouter suggests as soon after as possible. One lens for general use, one for low light. Both together can stay within your budget.</p>

<p>This is actually an interesting question. As others have mentioned, in the digital age it has been more common to replace your camera because you want a new one, not because your old one got too old. However, things are changing. For example, if you bought a D700 in 2008 you still have a fine camera. Maybe now we will keep our cameras for as long as they last.</p> <p>With my oldest DSLR paint is wearing from the buttons and the battery is getting difficult to replace. The actual camera is fine and likely would last for years more, but it might be the small things, like the OP`s battery door that would lead to a replacement.</p> <p>The next set of Dx and Dxxx replacements will likely have full wireless conectivity. That might make our current cameras seem a bit old after a while. I reach for my phone now when I have to take a photo and send it off quickly, but that won`t be the case in the future I suspect.</p>

<p>One of the many ways to get perfectly uniform lighting behind your slides or negatives is to use parts from an old enlarger. Enlargers come with negative holders (to hold the negatives of course) and condensor lenses to flatten out a light source. You can put anything on the other side of the condensor lens, a constant light or a flash, and you will get even lighting on your negative.</p>

<p>Peter M, I wasn`t clear from your posting if you were shooting jpegs just to be able to read them on your iPad, so just in case you didn`t know, your iPad will accept raw files from your D800 for viewing.</p>

<p>I am now officially adding a "howlers" category to my lens rating system.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Of course, if it did those things (depending how well...), the D800 would be nearer to being a passable substitute for a D3s</p> </blockquote> <p>... and more like a true update of the D700.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Using an extreme example to single this lens out is misleading and unfair.</p> </blockquote> <p>I am certainly not trying to be misleading, nor do I think I was unfair. I'm just saying that under these challenging lighting situations this is how the 85mm f1.8g did. For the record, I think the lens is very good.</p>

<p>Before some PP my example was even worse than I showed previously as I struggled between being able to show some detail in the performers face yet maintain something in the background. I would call it a difficult situation but I would not agree with the term extreme.</p> <p>Yes the background is over-exposed but there was no way around that as in many situations. Note the histogram, just one of those situations where everything is either light or dark. </p> <p>My example screams for some fill flash, but when you can't you can't. </p> <p>I think this situation, although difficult, is not out of the usual.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>How do they know if you take on a vacation out of the country ?</p> </blockquote> <p>They likely would not, nevertheless it is breaking their rules and would likely void any insurance you had on the item. I am just bringing up the point so someone can make their own informed decisions.</p>

<p>Andrew, here is an example for you. Difficult lighting situation especially as a flash was not appropriate. Yes, easy to correct, nevertheless.... This was a dark bar with only one window, one full wall like a garage door style. It was the middle of the day and there were no lights at all on this performer, a daughter of a friend of mine. I guess it goes without saying that this was shot with an 85mm f1.8G.</p><div></div>

<p>What about a Nikon 1 with an adaptor for some additional flexibility?</p> <p>Joseph, I don't know about the two rental companies you mentioned but I know that many rental companies will not let you take their items out of the country.</p>

<p>Perhaps the problem is that it is just too easy these days to make these kinds of adjustments, and therefore it is equallly easy to overuse them. It is our eye that is important, not our ability to move a slider. The endeavour has always been the same, the tools only make it possible. </p>

<blockquote> <p>(Is there a "clarity" slider on PS?)</p> </blockquote> <p>There is a clarity slider in LightRoom and I believe that is what the OP is making reference to.<br> edit- I typed this at the same time JDM was posting.</p>

<p>I hope I didn't read this thread too quickly and miss something but, Dale, you can check the actual actuations on your camera by dragging a very recent photo here. <a href="http://shuttercounter.com/">LINK</a></p>

<blockquote> <p>DEFENDING the patent is another thing entirely. Just because someone has a patent doesn't mean they can defend it<br> &<br> It does seem unwinnable without a great expenditure of time and money</p> </blockquote> <p>I have a little bit of experience is this situation. The reality is that when a big player like Amazon or Disney or Home Depot or Starbucks sues you, you have to roll over. You or I can't afford to even start the process. If they decide to defend their Patent, they win and you loose. It is like playing poker with someone who raises $500,000 every time it is their turn.</p>

<p>Did you know this was possible, and can you imagine getting a cease and desist letter because you took a photo on a white background? I know the Patent is more specific than a white background, but who's to know the exact angle of your lights afterwards. Can you imagine standing in court and saying to the judge, "your honour my lights were pointed at 103 degrees, not 107".</p> <p><a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&idkey=NONE">Link to Patent</a></p>