richard_sentry

Thank you, these are wonderful responses.

Regarding:

http://www.nikonlinks.com/ruether/posts_html/85mm%20z.html

I have taken a look and I am lead to a separate and important posting. This will be placed tomorrow.

Regarding :

--- It is true that the faster lenses have "harsher Bokeh". The out-of-focus highlights tend to appear as "platelets",

Fast lenses (f/1.4) have harsh 'bokeh', or out of focus images. Generally true of Nikon's fast 50mm's. ---

These are also very important points in that he will need at least one good mid range portrait lens.

I still have not seen a specific flat out statement re the value of f2.8 types, but the surmising of the responses is effective.

My conclusion at this point, and particularly in light of:

--- If your son is going to do journalism or event photography with his DSLR, I predict he'll want at least one f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens. ---

That he should have a more dedicated portrait short or mid telephoto that is limited to an open F2.8 � as the bokeh factor is super important.

And that he should also have a f1.4 or even a MF F1.2 for event photography, as he will definitely be doing more of that also.

Also that the references to some lens trouble in the corners would be minimized with the D1 and its perspective of view not including the input from the outer edges of the lens.

This is wonderful and a real help to him, thanks.

Also - Are there any linkable images which would demonstrate the "platelets" like bokeh of the 50mm F1.4 or 50 mm F1,8 ?

So far I have found David Ruether lens references at:

http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html

and I am still searching for a specific article re F2.8 versus F1.4. Thanks, I will continue.

I have seen reference, in postings to this board, to the smooth

quality or nature of 2.8 lenses, particularly in comparison to 1.4

lenses. Is there a physical factor that I am not aware of that would

bring this about. I know that the 2.8 lens (all AIS) that I do have

are excellent, particularly in the portrait range they are superb, but

I do not quite see or know why a 1.4 or 1.8 lens would be lesser in

quality, by virtue of its speed, alone. Excluding � or perhaps

including � the ED characteristic of some of the classic 2.8 lenses.

This is relevant and significant to my son in the choices of the new

AF lenses for Nikon pro digital cameras as my son is evolving from my

older manual focus lenses. I am all ears. Thanks.

Again, the value of this board and its members. Thanks. I did not even know about APS in IL, having lived and shot mostly overseas and the two American Coasts. I did just call APS, it was not easy understanding the very friendly Japanese fellow who I spoke to, but they do make repairs on any Nikon body or lens.

He even indicated that the checking of aperture and shutter integrity of an F3, for example, would be no charge, but it is hard to get a feel of and for what their actual monetary charges are, as he courteously indicated that he could not give me sample costs. In any event, that is ok with me and a good resource has been found.

These various points brought up are valuable insights, thanks.

The actual, underlying principle of this concept, as I have requested responses, is what Nikon will do, with lenses, that are fully under warranty. I see statements on various posts, about Nikon denying unpaid warranty service on lenses.

But the actual point is that I see these posts, on other threads, that Nikon seems to be charging for lens service for USA lenses under warranty. I have never utilized Nikon for any warranty service in the several decades of using Nikon F cameras, so this surprises me. I already know of the separate but associated uncertainty regarding transferring the warranty to a new owner, which for any other product is no problem, but apparently for Nikon is not permitted.

Leaving the USA versus Gray market aside, that there would even be a question of warranty service by one of the great names in high end merchandise is almost unique.

Perhaps, as I recall it, there was a reference to lens fungus, as being an owner induced malady, rather than a Nikon responsibility, but there would seem to be little point in paying the extra for a new Nikon USA warranty if Nikon is unwilling to actually service.

I suppose I could start a detailed dialogue with Nikon USA, which is close to me in Torrance, but I would like to get a certainty on what Nikon will do and not do with lenses under warranty.

Richard

I am curious about the actualities of what Nikon will do for USA owned

Nikon lenses under warranty.

I keep spotting stories by unhappy owners of lenses who state that

Nikon would not fix this or that factor of the lens and charged them

quite a bit for shipping, in advance.

I still assume that the warranties that cover the Nikon cameras, such

as the F5 and F100 are valid and workable. But are the reasons for

going the extra mile and paying the extra amount for the Nikon

warranty ? actually of validity ?

If Nikon is uncooperative with fixing a Nikon lens under warranty, for

just about anything but owner abuse, such as dropping, other owner

mishandling and or weather damage, then what is the point of paying

double for a Nikon lens with Nikon warranty ? rather than a mint

condition used Nikon lens for half the price ?

Richard

Eric, this guy is for real.

And he is me.

It is actually a touch hard to overstate the value of these perspectives.

The line:

///For a wedding, the F100 or a F5 can make one day of work just about painless.///

is both provocative and enlightening. It addresses an element that is quite relevant to me, but heretofore not included in the computations.

It is obviously the case that the F5, introduced years after the F4, had the advantage of a much greater CPU computations per unit time, per size of chip. It is also conceivable that Nikon introduced or included quantities of additional algorithms, in the area of flash fill and flash function ? into the onboard chips.

Then there is the smartening of the SB units themselves, with the SB-80DX being the presumably smartest available, while the SB-800 is not yet available.

The above is only speculation on my part. I do take the word of those here posting, re the F5, F100 etc, being quite better than the F4 in terms of flash. That being said, are there other factors and scenarios which account for the considerable improvement of flash functions with the F5 ? I am quite interested.

Such is one of the functions of a forum, different perspectives.

Please continue. Thank you.

If there has been a quantum leap in flash metering and operation after the F4 and since the N90, as you mention, Ellis, then that is enough for me to find a way come up with the extra dough for the F5. I can get great shots with the earlier Nikons, such as the F2AS, F3 and particularly the FA, with its closed loop lens correction function during daylight. But auto or matrix fill flash is not an option prior to the F4. I would prefer to stay with the pro F line, rather than the N90, etc.

Ellis, I don't expect the camera and flash to think for me but with me, either. That is relevant to why I originated this discourse to begin with. I do have quantities of magnificent shots that I have mastered the printing of, when I have the golden hour lighting I design, and the light coverage of my subject. I know the 180 ED and use it to maximum results. I have done virtually all of my shooting with a light meter and the camera on manual.

I have recently found myself in relatively impromptu circumstances when I was shooting couples and the light, which I could not change, held a heavy contrast and shadow for one of the parties. I did not have a bouncer or capacity to SC-17 cable off the camera. This was an instigation point for my attempts to get a workable fill flash that would serve me. And the camera that would support it.

For daylight, particularly considering the degree to which I darkroom the shots, the light meter, again in daylight, of the F5, is not of great advantage over other Nikon internal light meters. I modify the colors, to such an extent.

But, if it is possible, that I can get a flash fill to work as well as, actually, I have now found the daylight Matrix metering to work, then that is a milestone on my quest.

If you wouldnt mind, I am curious as to how the flash metering circuitry of the F5 is better than the F4. Obviously the 1005 CCD light meter is somewhat better, but how does that relate to Auto Fill Flash, F5 versus F4 ?

Perhaps only a held and directed bounce screen will do it. BUT, if the flash smarts in the N90 and beyond, and particularly the F5 have jumped way ahead of the F4, this is of great interest for me, and for that I am grateful in your inclusive posting. And do so welcome the postings and viewpoints of others.

Richard

PS

I have downloaded both the SB-28 and the SB-26 pdf manuals. Quite valuable to find and view them, thanks, Phillip.

Would my fellow board members be so kind as to help me nail down my

assumptions re Nikon and FILL flash capabilities.

In this posting, I am interested in fill flash. Not in the 3D

capabilities of the F5. I have had a few too many less than ideal

results from heavy contrast lighting on one party of two, or one,

themselves. It may not be possible to get fill flash to save the day,

particularly with the F4, and it may be necessary to carry a

reflective light bouncer, such as the photoflex, even if that means

either another person to hold it or a stand/tripod to hold it.

In any event, it is my understanding that the F4 will FLASH Matrix

Meter with AIS lenses. But it is my impression that the F4 will only

AUTO FILL FLASH with CPU chipped or AF lenses - based on the following:

Halfway down the page of this url:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf4/flash/

there is the statement:

Nikon F4 - Matrix Balanced Fill-Flash works with all AF, Ai-S and Ai

Nikkor lenses.

But at this location 2/3 down the page:

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/j/jnwall/html/f4faq.htm

Automatic balanced fill-flash: Possible when AF Nikkor or AI-P

Nikkor lens is used with Nikon dedicated Speed lights.

There is the immediately above specification that AUTO balanced fill

flash will only work with AF lenses.

Or should one just forget about fill flash with the F4, use lite disks

for bounce filling and follow the MANUAL approach as per:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/fill.html

Half way down the page the paragraph starts with:

\\\ In a perverse way, this is the easiest way to do fill flash,

because manual flash does not care about how reflective the subject

is. \\\

This location gives good definitions

http://www.maxwell.com.au/photo/nikon/speedlights/

However, Matrix fill flash and AUTO fill flash and the F4 and AIS

versus CPU lenses is still not certain in my camp.

My plan is, if the F4 will meet the need, fill flash wise, to hold off

on and to leapfrog over the F5 when the time comes for digital, after

a maturing phase in the digital evolution. This assuming that the F5

is not a vast degree better at FILL flash, than the F4. and the 3D

part is, again, not of concern to me.

I have other points but it is probably better to present this, above,

on its own. Thanks.

Here?s the concept. As a preamble, the Nikon F4 is variously stated to

support slow sync and rear curtain sync.

http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~winstel/walter/F4spec.html

yet in other postings it is stated to not provide (but just support ?)

slow sync and rear curtain sync from the camera and rather to work

with a flash that provides slow sync and rear curtain sync from the

camera, itself. This later is what I believe to be the case.

A notable reference to Nikon Flash is at Ken Rockwell?s site:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/flash.htm

where he states

QUOTE ~~ significant to your photos is how you choose to diffuse that

light and how you choose to balance it with ambient light. END QUOTE ~~

and I could not agree with him more. Diffusion and daylight fill are

my two points of attention.

He also states:

QUOTE ~~~ Oddly, you should turn the flash on any time you photograph

people outdoors, and turn it off (or use SLOW sync mode) indoors. END

QUOTE ~~~

Yet the SB-80DX and SB-28 do NOT apparently have slow sync and rear

curtain sync built into the flash. With the SB-80DX and SB-28,

apparently one has to have one of the newest Nikons which has slow

sync and rear curtain sync built into the camera body.

This would seem to exclude the F4 and earlier from being able to use

the SB-80DX and SB-28 and force one to find an SB-26 or earlier.

The main reason for slow sync and rear curtain sync, as per Ken?s site

is indoors.

The newest flash, the SB-80DX has apparently been designed from the

ground up to well utilize that diffusion box accessory.

Here is the punch line:

Is it possible that the purportedly well designed DEDICATED NIKON

SB-80DX DIFFUSER CAP SEQUENCE would eliminate the need for slow sync

indoors ? And thus make it ok for the F4 with the designed DEDICATED

NIKON SB-80DX DIFFUSER CAP to be used with the SB-80DX, even though

the F4 cannot apparently provide slow sync and rear curtain sync and

NOR can the SB-80DX ?

Again, might it be workable to accept the apparent non availability of

slow sync and rear curtain sync of an F4 when used with the SB-80DX -

due to the new diffusing engineered into the SB-80DX ?

Would that diffusing engineering of the SB-80DX substitute for slow

sync indoors by filling the backgrounds the way slow sync indoors is

intended to do ?

Or would one be better off with an SB-26 on the F4, and use the

on-flash slow sync and rear curtain sync of the SB-26 for indoor flash

? And the SB-26 ? straight - for automatic balanced flash fill

outdoors with the F4 ?

Is there a factor of a different color or tone that is created by the

light flash of the newer Nikon DX flashes (SB-80DX), and if so is it

difficult to move the print tone back to the previous (SB-28 ? SB-26)

flash coloration ?

If one Photoshops everything, is there any likely difficulty due to

the possible different coloration ?

Also, separately, the only advantage of the SB-80DX, is that it will

cooperate with the DX settings on the Nikon Digital cameras D1, D100,

etc. correct ?

And thus the SB-28 and SB-26 will do everything needed by a camera

that is other than one of the DX Nikon Digital cameras, correct ?

For example the F5, F100, F4, etc.

///// The SB-50DX is a bit out of place on an F5 anyway... Hal Bissinger ///

Hal, would you please elaborate on this a bit. Is it the DX factor ? or greater strength from the SB-26 or SB-28 ? Or DX light coloring ? Or something else ?