pge

<p>The 55mm f3.5 is the ai version of the lense.</p>

<p><br>

</p>

<p >I have read that the ES-1 is intended for use with the PK-13 and the 55mm f2.8.<br /> <br /> I am in Canada and when using ebay it is always best if possible to buy from local sellers to avoid border costs and delays. Right now there is Canadian ebay listing for a 55mm f3.5 and an M2 extension tube as a package.<br /> <br /> Would I be correct in thinking that all I have to do is "ai" the M2 extension tube and then the 55mm f3.5 + M2 = 55mm f2.8 + PK-13 for the purpose of using an ES-1 to digitize slides?<br /> <br /> I will be using my D800. I presently have two lenses that have macro functions, the 105mm f2.8 VR and the 35-70mm f2.8 in case any of that is relevant. My main interest is studio shooting so lighting is not an issue. I considered putting this in the Digital Darkroom forum but I decided to post it here as I am asking about Nikon equipment compatibility.</p>

<p >Thanks for your help.</p>

<p>I agree that the real difference is f-stop, not IQ. Build also.<br /> <br />I rented the 180mm f2.8 and got better results with my 70-300mm at 180mm because of VR. Now, circumstances differ and VR is not always helpful.</p>

<p>I didn't entirely follow your intent for the lens. When you say travel you might benefit from the lighter 70-300mm. When you say fine art, do you mean making art or photographing art in a dark museum or a well lit studio? If it's the dark museum answer I suspect you will be happier with f4 than f5.6, and even happier with f2.8.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p>Rick, first the initials that you said "confuse you". When it comes to long lenses in today's world, you must have VR which is Vibration Reduction. Yes, as others might say, VR does not help in all situation, but it is incredibly helpful in many situations. Do not be without it.</p>

<p>For a trip to Europe the advice for a 70-300mm (VR only) ($500ish) or a 28-300mm (it has VR)($1000ish) is good. I prefer the 70-300mm but I don't use longer lenses often and I always know when I will be using one, so changing lenses is not a big deal for me. Also an all in one lens is not good for dark churches and such, a standard f2.8 lens will give you much better results.</p>

<p>Whey you say "birds" there are many people here on PN that take this very seriously. A true birder has a serious lens that frequently costs more than their camera body. I think you are talking about more casual bird shooting but if I am incorrect you should start a thread just about that. This kind of lens will likely not be very appropriate for dragging around Europe.</p>

<p>Here is a link for Nikon's lens terms. <a href="https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9919/~/glossary-of-nikkor-lens-terms">LINK</a></p>

<p>I have seen lots of hot pixels and your spots do not look like anything I have seen before. Different shapes, not red, very strange. Any foreign object on the AA filter would not show up as coloured.<br>

Have you tried a different lens? I know this is crazy but it almost looks like wine splatters on the rear element.</p>

<p>A D700 streaking and banding? That's a new one for me.</p>

<p>I was going to say what Wouter said about the 55-300mm. Its $319 new here in Toronto <a href="http://www.adencamera.com/product-overviewer.asp?ProdID=3431&Category=1">LINK</a></p>

<p>I went from a D700 to a D800 and initially I was surprised that the D800, pixel for pixel, was not as good at iso 6400. It's true and it's easy to demonstrate. That being said, the D800's 36mp can be manipulated so that you can end up with a better 12mp high iso file than the D700. My monitor is about 3mp's and I bet if you reduced both to that size you would have a tough time seeing the difference. The D800's greater dynamic range does come into play and is a definite advantage over the D700.<br /> My conclusion is, yes it is better but do not expect miracles.<br>

Shun, do you really think a fine camera such as the D7100 deserves to be called lowly?</p>

<p>Tough crowd to please.</p>

<p>I'm happy to have just saved you money Andrew ; o )</p>

 

<p>I judge the high iso abilities of a camera not by the micro differences in 100% crops but by the highest iso level that still creates acceptable results for me. I have mainly owned 4 DSLRs and I judge them this way:<br>

D200 > iso800 D300 > iso3200 D700 > iso6400 D800 >iso6400<br>

I bring this up for two reasons. One is to say to you Andrew, you may be able to see differences in iso6400 photos between the D700 and D800 but for me those differences are not great enough to shoot the D800 at anything greater and therefore I find no practical difference. The second reason I bring this up is that I find over and over again that dim indoor lighting requires F2.8 1/60 iso6400. If you are unwilling to shoot at iso6400 you have to make a compromise in one of the other parameters. This is why I personally find a huge practical difference between the D300 and the D700, it gets you over that hurtle.</p>

 

<p>Funny video. Yes Juvenile humor. Some points were quite good.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>or maybe get a prime lens for the F5</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Such as a 50mm which is an inexpensive solution and would go well with your lens collection anyways.</p>

<p>Here's a reference page on lens compatibility of the F5 <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/NikonF5/compatibility/">LINK</a></p>

<p>So if indeed they faked these landings this camera is a fraud ; o )</p>

<blockquote>

<p>switch it to monochrome and went out shooting skateboarders....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Blake, I also like monochrome but except for some initial experimentation in 2006 I only shoot colour and do the conversion in Photoshop. My understanding is that the monochrome setting on a DSLR simply desaturates the photo whereas you will have much more control of your monochrome result if you capture all of the information first.</p>

<p>I would also select the 17-35 + 50.</p>

<p>Hi Sarah, I had a look at your website, you do very nice work. I take your point that if you get to choose the context in which your photos are presented then the portrait orientation is just as powerful as it has always been. However we often do not. If you deliver a customer 200 wedding photos they will likely make them "full screen" and start clicking. In my very mundane examples with this post both photos are much bigger than the screen. If I had simply taken the second photo in landscape but reduced the focal length somewhat I would have produced the same photo but "with the sides". The only conclusion I draw from this is the same conclusion we have always come to with photography, that is, the medium matters. </p>

<p>Fred, I do remember that apple monitor. Too bad it didn't catch on.</p>

<p>Your wall (which looks great btw, I saw some of the photos in your portfolio) is a good example of how prints can choose size and format whereas computer monitor viewing is viewing within a pre-determined frame.</p>

<p>As I view this webpage now I see three of our photos at the bottom. Mine is square whereas Fred and Anders have portrait photos. It's just random of course, but may suggest that portrait is not dead.</p>

<p>I found Fred's point about the iPhone interesting. I use an iPad to show photos and will often bring it out in social situations. The iPad can be simply reoriented as necessary.</p>

<p>Anders, counter to your point, maybe square is the format that is least served by monitors as they are never square. I see your point though, square being the compromise.</p>

<p>Maybe what we need is an adjusting elbow holding our computer monitors so they can be reoriented when we are viewing portrait photos.</p>

<p>And now portrait>></p><div></div>

<p><br>

</p>

<p >When you look at a printed photograph the size is not dependant on the orientation. An 8x10 is the same size whether it is landscape or portrait. However, today the vast majority of photographic viewing is done on a fixed size landscape oriented computer monitor. The result is that a landscape photo uses all or most of the monitor real estate whereas the portrait oriented photo only uses a bit more than 1/3 of that same real estate. My question for discussion is, do you think the portrait orientation has been devalued by the way we view photos in 2014? Is a portrait oriented photo a missed opportunity to use the entire medium? I am posting two screencaps from my computer as examples. Each is a photo I took while closing up my cottage for this winter. Obviously the subject matter is not overly interesting.</p><div></div>

<p>I only looked at iso 6400 because I am not interested in higher, however I was actually expecting less of a difference. I think the D4s does a good amount better than the D4 and much better than the 6D. I looked at both jpeg and raw.</p>

<p>A balanced histogram without many blown highlights or lost detail in the blacks.</p>

<p><br>

</p>

<p >Oliver, although you say that "The meter readings in the D700 are the same" you only specifically refer to shutter speed. Are you certain that the Aperture and ISO setting are also the same? If indeed all three exposure parameters are the same it may indicate a malfunction with one of the lenses. I doubt that the F > T difference accounts for that much exposure imbalance. As Shun says "which lens gives you the "correct" exposure”?</p>