pge

<p>With Shun's suggestion that the large body 35mm/FF high megapixel camera line is dead, it leads me to believe even more that there is room for MF under $9k. Although all of this comes too early as the Pentax has not been released yet, if the Pentax does show marked improvement over the Nikon and Sony 36 megapixel offerings it will shake things up IMO. If Shun is right as he usually is and there is no D4X 50+ creature around the corner, I wonder how and if Nikon is going to deal with this new Pentax pushing its way into studios and onto mountain tops.</p>

<p>Unless I am mistaken the 2005 D200 also had auto iso in M. </p>

<p>I believe that Ilkka is dead on, it refers to video.</p>

<p>Joe, I take your point that these are crop sensors. Nevertheless they are larger than FX by quite a reasonable amount. I am a member of another forum that is full of studio shooters and your reaction is not typical of theirs. MF used to be very expensive and not flexible. The D3X used to be the king of the studio but given this Pentax I'm not so sure the D4X could ever hope for that title.</p>

<p>Andrew your point about the D3X successor is really where I was going with this.</p>

<p>Peter, I have two comments. As for "portability and speed" this Pentax is not bad at all for a MF camera. 3 frames per second is pretty close to a D800 and its weather sealed. As for studio shooters and lenses, the studio is such a controlled environment that often one lens is enough. I know some studio guys that just use a 70-200mm f2.8.</p>

<p>When Nikon introduced the D800/e many suggested that MF might die. After watching/reading some interesting comparisons between the D800 and MF I wondered too.<br /> Many have talked about the possibility of Nikon and Canon releasing some X version of their flagships reaching into the 50+ range, another possible nail in the MF coffin.<br /> But then I see that Pentax has just announced a MF camera at under $9000, and apparently with some worthy low light performance. I assume other brands will follow.<br /> Now I wonder if there is any room for a D4X at almost the same price? I wonder if very high MegaPixel cameras will now be the stuff of MF, MF taking over the studio and FF being more the stuff of PJ and sports? I wonder if this new Pentax is a game changer?<br /> <a href="http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/04/new-51mp-pentax-645z-medium-format-camera-cmos-sensor-shoots-hd-video-will-sell-8500.html">Link to the Pentax 645Z</a></p>

<p>John, you've sold 60,000 photos, impressive, and all without noise or problems.<br /> Nevertheless I think Tom is well within reason for asking on a photo forum how to better develop his photos.</p>

<p>Tom when you open your Raw photos in Photoshop do you apply any noise reduction at that stage? The third tab in the Raw Converter is called "detail" and contains noise reduction along with sharpening. If you haven't already, experiment with these setting until the result is more to your taste.</p>

<p>Tom, yes one way to reduce noise is to reduce the size of the photo as you can see from your example 2.<br /> I think we would all like to know your workflow so we can see where you could improve on the noise, but here is a small list of things that may be useful.<br /> Try to shoot at lower iso's when possible. Although I respect your need for great dof, and therefore f22, it seems a bit excessive. Try f11 and see if you are getting the dof you want. Experiment.<br /> If you find yourself "lightening up" your photos in general, or shadows specifically, try "lightening up" your overall exposure in camera. You get lower noise levels when you properly expose right off.<br /> Try shooting on a tripod so you can increase the time on your shutter and therefore reduce your iso.<br /> All photos have noise so you have to learn how to deal with it. Shoot Raw and then deal with your noise in Lightroom or a program that is "noise" specific. Achieve the look you want. DXO has an interesting noise routine that takes a long time but produces nice results.<br /> Lastly, don't worry about it too much. Pixel peeping can be your enemy. <br /> Great compositions btw.</p>

<p>You certainly traded up both in quality of camera and in lower previous use. I don`t see a mistake there. As for credit, we each have to make that decision for ourselves.</p>

<p>IF you edit an image in Photoshop, it's destructive.</p>

<p>The term `destructive`is probably better replaced by the term `permanent`. Photoshop is permanent or not permanent depending on how you decide to use it. It is not one or the other. If you don`t want to make a permanent change but you want to make a new iteration, as Andrew suggests, there are several ways to do this beyond `save as`. Smart Objects come to mind. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not accustomed to zooms and could be able to live without.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In this case the recent crop of f1.8's would all work nicely. 28mm, 35mm, 50 you have covered, and 85mm. I have them all other than the recent 35mm and have no hesitation in recommending them.</p>

<p>Nikon has been known to release a lens more or less designed for a soon to be released body. The 24-85mm VR and the D600 come to mind. Although f6.3 is above the suggested range for most of the current dx bodies, it may indicate that either there is a new dx body around the corner, or at the least all new dx bodies will have f8 AF compatibility.</p>

<p>Ok so this response is one of those "I have never used that camera but..."</p>

<p>But I have a competitors waterproof camera and I have a Coolpix camera (P7700) and I would say without any hesitation that you will not be able to use any P&S camera for "action situations" with satisfactory results. They just do not shoot fast enough.</p>

<p>That said, waterproof/bombproof cameras are great. On two consecutive vacations my best photograph was taken with my terrible little waterproof camera, not because its a great camera but because it was there at the critical time. I don't really think you can judge this type of camera too harshly by comparing photos online, by looking at high iso performance, they aren't that type of camera.</p>

<p>Thanks Henry, indeed that dpreview link lead me to some interesting comments. I saw one that sounded quite a bit like my original post. It does appear to be the arms that hold the flash up and nothing to do with orientation.</p>

<p>"Gently shook my D800 - yes there is a soft rattling noise in the flash housing - I believe it is the holding mechanism that makes that noise when the flash is down, perfectly normal then. My D300s is also making similar noise - but a bit softer."</p>

<p>Thanks Robin.</p>

<p>You may have misunderstood. I am not about to sent the camera back to Nikon and I don't think it is malfunctioning. I am just curious.</p>

<p>If a shake (gently) my D800 with or without a lens mounted I hear a rattle as if there was a small ball in a chamber within the camera. When I do the same thing to my D300 I hear the same thing although it is as if the ball and chamber are smaller, therefore less sound. I have made sure it isn't anything external such as the strap lugs. I assume this has to do with the orientation sensor within the camera yet my iPhone does not rattle when shaken. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>You didn't mention why you wanted to sell the D700. It would be hard to determine which camera you should have as a backup without you stating where the D700 fails you.</p>

<p>Nicole, I could well be wrong but I think you are confusing the amount of storage space the file takes with its physical dimensions in pixels. I suggest that you give us two pieces of information. In the widows folder where you have some of your images Right Mouse click on one image without opening it and select Properties. In the first panel you will see Size: Tell us what that is in KB. In the third panel (third tab) called Details you will see Dimensions. Tell us what that says. A D700 image in FX mode is 3872x2592.</p>

<p>I use Matin leather straps which are long enough to wear as a sling. I can pull my camera up to my eye and take a shot without unslinging it. So far it has worked for me. Here's a link to one in my local camera store but Ebay has loads of them. <a href="http://www.vistek.ca/store/BagsCases/252620/matin-etshaim-leather-strap-vintage38-brown.aspx">LINK</a></p>

<p>Could you be confusing MegaPixels with MegaBytes?</p>

<p>This link includes all 4 of the 27.5 extension tubes and indeed I see no difference whatsoever between the M and M2 tubes. I would say you are correct about the Pk3 and Pk13 tubes. <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/michaeliu/cameras/shared/ff2macro/ff2extube.htm">LINK</a></p>

<p>Thank you Joe for this explanation. I understand now. I am comfortable with complete manual and I just clicked "buy it now". Thank you all for your help.</p>

<p>I think I found my answer. Lex Jenkins says that he mounts an M2 on a D2h without issue. <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00Uy3H">Link</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"The rear of the tube completely clears the aperture indexing tab so it's not a problem - it's not AI, per se, but not even a factor since it doesn't touch the tab."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for this information Kent. The f3.5 that I am looking at is indeed ai. However, as I understand it the M2 is not ai. I find your information about the M ring quite interesting and wonder if the M2 can also be mounted safely. I did find one comment on a forum that suggested that the M2, although pre-ai, could be safely mounted but I have not been able to confirm that.</p>

<p>Thanks Joe. Could you please comment on mounting the M2. Was the one you used ai'ed or mounted on an appropriate camera? Are extension tubes ai'ed the same as a lens would be?</p>

<p>I am sure you have tried more than one card reader.</p>

<p>If you put the card back into the camera do the photos show on preview?</p>

<p>When you just view the card on the computer do you see the images? Will they view as thumbs? Can you view them straight from the card? Have you tried opening them up straight from the card in some other software? Have you tried copying them from the card to some local spot on your computer and opening them from there?</p>