5711

<p>thank you joe.<br> that is amazing. thanks</p>

<p>if the d5 comes with an e vf, i trash my gear this instant and go buy a hasselblad and too many rolls of film :)</p>

<p>i would recommend the nikon d7200.<br /> it comes with a 18-140 for aprox. €1600 on amazon.<br /> http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/digital-cameras/slr/consumer/d7200<br /> <br />it is similar in size but not that heavy.<br /> seems to be a camera you could enjoy.<br /> give it a test (especially in regards of the af-on button .. )</p> <p>just my initial thought.<br /> you could also think about buying used, if the af on button is mandatory.<br /> i do not know if there is a custom setting for the d7200 that would make the af e, af l button a af on button.<br /> someone else here might give you better advice.<br /> its a start though :)</p> <p>edit:<br> nikon d7200, manual page 286, you can assign af-on to the af-e/af-l button</p>

<p>din a format series:<br> it is 1: square-root 2<br> they came up witht his in germany after the first world war.<br> going down from big to small you can put them in half and a0 is one square meter.<br> that is all i can remember.<br> i still wonder how and why..and looking at american a and e paper..how why..damnit..who knows.</p> <p>total unnecessary chaos :D</p>

<p>good decision.<br> i tried to go cheap..and..you know how stories like this always end.</p> <p>all the best<br> enjoy your regained full battery life :)</p>

<p>reset it to factory standard, update it to 2.03 http://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/1/D3.html<br> this is how it works: http://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/fw/1.html</p> <p>maybe this helps</p>

<p>...woops..doubled that one ..sorry, see below.<br /> (maybe an admin could delete this post-thanks in advance)</p>

<p>i bought hähnel batteries for the d3 series and was dissapointed.<br /> would only make 500 shots.<br /> went back to the store once, twice, threw them away</p> <p>might have been bad luck, but my onley experience with 3rd party batteries.<br /> i stick with nikon.</p> <p>edit:<br> i got one nikon battery lvl 3 and one on lvl 4 as ...idk..backup of the backup.<br> usually the 4 would uncharge quite quickly.<br> lvl 3 is capabable of shooting around 2k images.</p>

<p>i went to a concert</p> <p>this is the band disillusion, performing their album "back to times of splender" from front to back..first show after four years or so with fans comming to vienna from all over the world.</p> <p><img src="http://41.media.tumblr.com/8f484706718362157fc92cbf51812250/tumblr_np6pj0XT2y1tipmvdo1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="852" /><br> <br />nikon d3 f2.8 1/320 -1EV iso 3200 16mm fisheye<br> one shot out of many for an online magazine called stormbringer (.at)</p>

<p>you can get useable shots at iso 6400 on a d3s that, with a little retouching in lightroom, work really well.<br /> i would not recomment printing them too large though.</p> <p>the term usable is easy to bend.<br /> when i use it i mean that the colours are okay, highlights might be blown, and they will be, but it is usable. you can nail the exposure without being to over or underexposed.<br /> i shoot a lot of high iso and rly, there is not much that requires more than 3.2k unless you need that shutterspeed. with the d3s you can give it at least one more stop to get images that are absolutely fine.</p> <p>i tend to process my images to b&w on a d3 at iso 6.4k, unless it is not wanted.<br /> id do that on 12.8 on a d3s, and it is not mendatory.</p> <p>it really comes down to what you are shooting.<br /> if you ->must<- get a picture, you can use 16k and you will have an image that is okay for anything that goes into web publishing.</p> <p>with that i am talking raw.<br /> with jpg i would probably stop at 6.4k on a d3s.</p> <p>eric got it right.<br /> intuitive, awesome and brilliant camera.<br /> if you get one, you will never pick up a d700 again..most likley ;)</p> <p>with the d5 "around the corner" i am hestitating to get one now as the prices slowly begin to drop to 2k euros here in austria, but if it was two years of time to wait for the d5 i would go get one now.</p> <p> </p>

<p>okay, cool</p> <p>i see we understand each other :))<br> all good</p>

<p>quoting myself...oh boy it has come to this hahaha<br /> well, i just posted this to another discussion and i think it has room here too..</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=790061">norbert wabnig</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 02, 2015; 10:37 a.m.<br /> something you gotta read. this guys explains real well.<br /> otherwise get some physics books on optics.<br /> <a href="http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/sensor-resolution-and-lens-mtf/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/sensor-resolution-and-lens-mtf/</a><br /> <a href="http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/sensor-resolution/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/sensor-resolution/</a><br /> <a href="http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/pixel-resolution/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/pixel-resolution/</a><br /> <a href="http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/pixel-resolution-2/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/pixel-resolution-2/</a><br /> <a href="http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/image-sharpness/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/image-sharpness/</a></p> </blockquote>

<p>something you gotta read. this guys explains real well.<br> otherwise get some physics books on optics.</p> <p>http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/sensor-resolution-and-lens-mtf/<br /> http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/sensor-resolution/<br /> http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/pixel-resolution/<br /> http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/pixel-resolution-2/<br /> http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/image-sharpness/</p> <p> </p>

<p>that is true, high iso on a d3 above 3.2k gets iffy. not so on the d3s, this camera is known for outstanding iso performance rendering the d4 a weak update..</p> <p>d3s for free? wow<br> i wish they'd give me one too..<br> where was the truck with the cameras..jeez..next timne get me one too :)))</p>

<p>ahw ell..by the way:<br /> as far as the bank thing goes: the 1dx and 5dmk3 were part of a job deal. i had to get them because theyre using canon exclusivly.<br /> gonna get rid of them in the near future....</p> <p>and concerning jpgs. i dnt know about the buffer on the d700. the d3 without bufferupgrade gets slow after around 30, the one with around 65 shots the 1dx....i stopped it..that took too long.<br /> the numbers are usually a bit higher as the camera itself suggests.</p> <p>i would recomment bursting.<br /> with a d3/s i would recomment stoping pressing (unless you cant do it differently) the shutter when it shows a remaining number of about 3-10 shots depending on the urgency of you taking fotos right now.<br /> thats for raw, and it lets you shoot until your battery runs out..no problem with jpg here.</p> <p>i also would recomment checking the battery life.<br /> a new d3/d3s battery should be able to get 3-4k photos...<br /> batteries are expensive.</p> <p>do not buy hähnel.<br /> i had two..they made like 500 photos each...whats that..</p> <p><br /> one more thing</p> <p>the shuttersound of the d3 series is the best :)))</p>

<p>the sensor shake actaully is ...well..hocum.<br> i had the sensor cleaning turned off on my 1dmk3, 4, x and 5d mk3 and..it still beats the d3...<br> i never noticed any difference with the shake turned on. what would it do anyways...<br> prove me wrong please..i am curious to know if there actually is something to it..</p> <p>my lenses get changed outside, almost exclusivly and i had the 1dmk3 for..idk..long and didnt have much troubles.<br> i really wanna know whats it good for.<br> id say absolutely nothing..but yeah you know..maybe some superzoom using fotog can help me out here...winkwink<br> <br /> what really is important are those antistatic things next to the sensor.<br /> the d3 doesnt have that, which blows ..believe you me..<br /> macro, bellows, pk 13 and stuff..that are ..uhm..veins of a leaf.</p> <p>that is my corner.<br /> <img src="https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10342403_258572007675300_5368394388563106907_n.jpg?oh=966ba9813405d88177faa42aa714165c&oe=55EEF8A4" alt="" width="960" height="767" /><br /> foto linked from my facebook page.<br /> get a d3s...</p>

<p>the d3 has the same sensor as the d700 if i am not mistaken.<br /> the d3 already outperforms the d700 in terms of focus and speed.<br /> tested that for one day.<br /> i also thought about getting a d3s once so i tested that one and found it to be at least 1 stop better at iso 3200 than the d3/d700.</p> <p>it outperforms the d3 and was highly recommended to choose a good d3s over a d4, when the d4 was relaesed as the upgrade was not big enough. given the af issues and colour on the cameraas lcd of the d4 ..the d3s could have been a better deal unless it did not really matter.</p> <p>up till now i used d3 d3s d4s in sports and concert, d4s and d3s only for one day though and i always stick to 6fps, if the scene is contrallable. af has better chances to lockon as the af mirror rfelcts images back to the sensor more often and thus enabeling the camera to calculate movement and af adjustments better compared to bursting something with 12+ fps.</p> <p>the camera is heavier but the ergonomics are better.<br /> on a daily basis i use a d3, 1dx and 5d mk3.<br /> the d3 clearly wins here, by far..</p> <p>the 70-200 is a big lens.<br /> if i have the camera with the 70-200 hanging by my side, i twist the camera belt once so the view finder will look inwards towards my body.<br /> this makes the camera hang there more stable with the lens hanging straight down and not standing off yourself.<br /> so its better for you to carry as the weight gets more centered.</p> <p>the d3s clearly wins in high iso and af, also over a d3.<br /> id say you shoudl atleast give it a testrun and then decide.</p> <p>but as far as i have seen and experienced it, it is the better camera and my advice, especially on a sweet deal like this..is to go get it.<br /> i know that i must not tell you about the obvious things to check for when buy used..so..just do it :)</p> <p>dlightningh and noise reduction will slow your camera down which will be highly noticable when shooting raw.<br> i had some weird stuff going on when using those things on high, light on black background with artifacts and unnatural looks, so i wouldnt suggest using that settings over normal.</p> <p>the only thing i suggest you check out is if the d3s ever recieved a buffer upgradde and if your model has it or not. if not, is it still done by nikon? i know the program for the d3 has been canceled and one of mine doesnt have it which is annyoing..16 vs 35 shots (raw)<br> <br /><br /></p>

<p>mary..this is not a model...</p> <p>if mary and borgis do not like my tone, well. thats too bad, really.<br> i am very sad now.</p> <p> </p>

<p>well you are right and i am not saying this.<br /> it just drives me mad when ppl are obsessed with the optical "quality" of whatever.<br /> it is generalized hate against that, not only twoards super zooms.</p> <p>to what you said, you are right.<br /> recently, due to the loss of the 16-35 i was forced to use the 24-70 more often.<br /> not too happy.<br /> my way to go is two cameras.<br /> one wioth a 16-35, one with the 70-200.<br /> i then carry a lensbag with the 24-70 and a bag with a sb910 around my shoulder, just in case.</p> <p>try the 16-35, 70-200 combo ;)</p> <p>edit:<br> btw:<br /> i posted a photo taht is not sharp or without distortion to make my point clear. didnt get my drift there...but well... ;)<br> doesnt matter</p> <p> </p>

<p>i am not sure anymore, but i think an ex studio collegue of mine had the nikkor 135 f 2.0 and it was amazingly sharp on the d3x. i did not borrow it more often than twice i think.<br> maybe browse your second hand stores in the area for that one too, maybe just for comparism only</p>

<p>that shot looks like taken with a go pro. haha<br /> just kidding.<br /> however, it is not proof that the lens is good.<br /> idk where you get that idea.<br /> i did however end up using certain superzooms over the last couple of years as i wanted to see what theyre like.<br /> i even borrowed one for a day..<br /> ofc they are better as they had been in 1999, but far from good..and i already saw that as a <br /> 16 year old teenager using film.<br /> so why are you argueing..i dnt get it.<br /> as you obviously already used the nikkor, why bother asking what you should go for.#<br /> as i said before, and has been pointed out several times already:<br /> superzooms are convinient.<br /> they lack sharpness, it is a huge compromise ofc.<br /> get the nikkor, f5.6 over 6.3</p> <p>enjoy<br /> cheers</p> <p>edit:<br /> ilford hp5<br /> canon eos 300<br /> sigma 28-300<br /> taken in 1999 or 2k<br /> one of the last shots i took with a super zoom ;)<br> obvious distortion in this shot was froms canning.<br> i didnt do that myself backthen..and this is what you get..well..<br /> <br />linked from my tumblr: http://nwfoto.tumblr.com/<br /> <img src="http://40.media.tumblr.com/ef0b2cd8c87af4006173fc92b3049987/tumblr_n9iubbKI3r1tipmvdo2_400.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>d 750 - 1/4000<br /> d 800 - 1/8000</p> <p>id take a d800 anytime</p> <p>well..back then i only had 1/2000 and it pissed me off, too many times.<br> this however depends on what you want to do or if it is just another possibility to you.</p> <p>if i did not destroy everything and was busy buying back what i destroy id pick up a d800.</p>

<p>well..it all depends on what you are used to and what you aiming for...<br /> the last time i mounted a 28-300 on my camera i had the feeling i was looking through a thick glass and beeing really drunk.<br /> there is no point in argueing over it..those lenses are not there for their optical quality.</p> <p>they are for people who want the convience of the 28-300 without changing lenses.</p> <p>as far as you two choices go, take the nikkor, f5.6 is better than 6.3 at the long end it is noticable.<br /> do not argue about image quality.<br /> it sucks.<br /> period.<br /> the shot you posted taken with a d800..well it is a nice photo, but the quality..........<br /> why put a lens like that on a camera like that and then say it is fine.<br /> it obviously isnt.<br /> noone else will tell you this out of respect.<br /> i dont care.<br /> f 16 and image quality...sigh..</p> <p>so<br /> 28-300</p> <p>take the nikkor and dnt argue wether or not the image quality is good.<br /> jeez..it hurts..</p> <p>to be honest..if i had the choice between a 50 1.8g and a 28-300 i would go with the 50 10 times out of 10 without even thinking about it.</p> <p>this discussion is as pointless as a 28-300 lens</p>

<p>i really got into photography when i "borrowed" the eos300 and a sigma 28-300 permantly from my dad in 1999.<br /> sometimes he asks me when he will be getting it back...yeah thats right..i still use it from time to time..<br /> best thing ever. and yeah, there is no d in it because that was a film camera ...</p> <p>concerning the lenschoice:<br /> the image quality is shit, on all of those.<br /> but you can actually do everything with it and that is worth more.<br /> there is no bad photo because the quality sucks..there are only images that suck, and then those that dont.<br /> id rather have a not so sharp, maybe even blurred and out of focus cool shot that leaves me with a feeling, emotion, idea, whatever sort of reaction rather than a perfectly fine very well executed image that has no soul.</p> <p><br /> buy such a lens as a beginner, having not enough money for a 200-400 (which i do not have either) or you just do not care about distortion and photography is something you use to document your life and of those around you without<br /> having the need of haveing "real good" equipment.</p> <p>the d750 is a real good camera though.<br /> so naturally i totally agree with kent.</p> <p>anyone who puts a lens like that on that camera might be aswell locked away, unless one of the reasons i mentioned<br /> above is one that is responsable for you wanting to buy this lens.</p> <p>if so, you may stay free and enjoy photography.</p> <p>if you are a beginner, do not expect the best quality.<br /> know (!!!) that you will be replacing this lens quite soon and<br /> use it as a learning tool and go nuts.<br /> i can also recommend those macro lenses you screw on there using the filter mount.</p> <p>my estimate, if youre taking it srsly is that you will have this lens one to two years ( if youre a beginner on a budget and the d750 was a gift)</p> <p>if you bought the d750 yourself, do yourself a favour and safe up for better glass.</p> <p>it is better to get a cheaper camera and invest more in good lenses than having a pro body and then put a glass of gurks in that mount and expect the camera to be responsible for the quality..it was that expensive, wasnt it? ;)<br /> <br />in that case i would recommend the new 80-400 and a 24-120</p> <p>as far as you question goes..id recommend the nikkor</p> <p>f5.6 @ 300mm beats f63.<br /> easy as that</p>

<p>matt, i hate you for this...<br /> forgot my wallet at home..hungry..and then i see this.<br /> well..<br />now for something completely different<br /> shun, you should go to one of these ;)</p> <p>this band is called sylosis. a british metal band.</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18028012-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p> <p>nikon d3, iso 400, 24-70, 1/5th, f 2.8</p>