Mike D

John_Shriver "I miss the Unified view of forums" Nailed it. That is what made PN my first choice of photo web sites on the internet.

I'm having a hard time also (I'm lazy) so I may eventually get around to checking out the How To thread but since only 8 people are on Photo.net at the present time, I'm not very motivated.

I I just can't figure out how to use the site efficiently. It seems like I have to do a lot of looking just to find the stuff I'm looking for. Maybe I'm just whining.

<p>Yup, been shooting most of the morning with an iPhone documenting all the damage our HOA has done to the slopes in front of our house. I normally shoot for fun but today I was shooting for a purpose.</p> <p>http://mdougherty.com/999-BS/slope-vegetation/00-slope-bushes-1-htm.htm</p>

<p>The only problem with Surface Pros is their lack of dependability. My Surface 3 went nuts on me when I was in Patagonia last year. Almost wrecked my trip when Even Bill Belichick of the New England Patriots got caught on video throwing his Surface against a bench on the football field last year. </p>

<p>It may make sense to just buy a used one in mint condition for $60 on eBay. They range from $30 to $200. If you would like less risk, there's an FT2 at KEH for $65. I've had bodies repaired before and it can be really expensive. </p>

<p>I always use a protective filters because I never use caps. When shooting in the field, I reach in my backpack and pull out one of four body/lens combos and start shooting. All of my bodies are preset to ISO 250, aperture priority, F8 so all I have to do is turn the body on and start shooting. (and I use a tripod) </p>

<p>The D300 was introduced in 2007 and the D500 in 2016. That's a pretty long period of time to upgrade their cropped frame sports camera. With sales volumes of DSLRs going down rapidly, I suspect that the time frame between "major" model upgrades will be stretched out in the future. The last 10 years really has been the golden age of the DSLR. One caveat is that Nikon may introduce something interesting for their upcoming anniversary in 2017. </p>

<p>David ... this is the "casual photo conversations" forum. I'm old with a degree in marketing and over the years I've seen many superior products fail because of lack of marketing, including packaging. Go to any big box retailer and notice how superior packaging is essential for product success. As Nikon and Canon go "up-market" to achieve larger margins on higher end cameras to make up for declining sales volumes of lower priced cameras, their current packaging simply doesn't warrant their higher prices. (Leica does.) This may not make a difference for older photography enthusiasts, but it certainly won't help attract any new, younger enthusiasts who are used to the high end packaging of Apple, Microsoft, and Samsung products. </p>

<p>Just got the Nikon 105 F1.4 E and while it appears to be a nice lens, the packaging is typical Nikon which doesn't seem to have changed in decades. At least my Sigma lenses came in their own case which is excellent for lens storage. It's not that Nikon packaging has gotten worse; it's that other consumer products producers have gotten much better. It first started with Apple and their beautiful iMac, iPhone, and iPad packaging. You actually want to keep it. Even Microsoft's Surface computer packaging is now very nice. It's not that the packaging makes the product better, it's just an indication that the manufacturer cares. For a $2,100 lens, you'd think that Nikon might have upped their game a little bit. (Also note, the instructions inside the box are one grade better than toilet paper.)</p>

<p>I remember back in the 70's, my dad visited Japan and brought me back a Nikon F (no meter). Cameras and lenses wee much cheaper in Japan and Hong Kong than the U.S. in those days. I remember reading a review of DSLRs in Consumer Reports and they ranked my Nikon F #13 (probably for lack of features). I was crushed. That didn't deter me and I still have that Nikon F today with a bunch of Nippon Kogaku lenses. All of the equipment still works great and the shutter action is a delight to hear and feel. </p>

<p>Brooks ... I just peeled off the film on the back and placed the rigid piece of ultra thin glass over the LCD screen. Nothing else to do, it's rigid, and sticks without any bubbles. I've used the other, non-rigid ones before and what a pain to get them on straight and without bubbles. I've now used the Larmor on several Nikon bodies. I'm sure they are made in China and the manufacturer does not have a good command of the English language. </p>

<p>I use a "Larmor GGS Self-Adhesive Optical Glass LCD Screen Protector for Nikon D750" from Amazon. Easy to install, crystal clear, and can't tell it's even on the LCD. All my Nikon and Sony bodies have this screen protector and I don't hesitate to take a towel in the field and wipe it off. Just a thought for consideration. A few reviews claim that it does not fit properly. Mine fit exact. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Instead of another DSLR successor, how about a 42 or 50 MP mirror-less body that will work with current Nikon lenses. With its much lighter wight (than the D810), it would be focused on the "travel" market. </p>

<p>A dream of the amateur photographer is the potential to make money with their DSLR. Unfortunately, earning significant money from stock sales and selling prints is getting extremely difficult. There is simply too much supply. Even talented professionals now give travel and photo tours and classes in order to enhance their income from photography. Making money from photography has become really hard work and without the carrot to attract potential serious amateur DSLR buyers, DSLR sales will continue to drop. </p>

<p>Nikon is kind of like Trump. No one has any clue what Nikon will do next. When I thought that they had given up on the cropped frame sports market, they introduced the D500. The next logical step would be a D750 replacement with a higher MP sensor. Because it's logical, it won't happen. I would like to add that almost all camera makers are under financial duress due to falling sales volumes. The capital budget is one of the first cost categories to get reduced. Expect a longer time between models in the future. </p>

<p>I just noticed that Canon has a 24 MP mirror-less body (M3 and now M5) that can be used with many DSLR canon mount lenses with an additional adapter. Auto focus and image stabilization are functional. On trips, I can envision myself taking a 36-42 MP mirror-less body (smaller and lighter) instead of a D810. In some travel situations, saving a couple pounds can mean a lot. It would not need to be professional grade. Just high MP and DR. </p>

<p>I remember in the 60s seeing his photo books in better book stores. Very beautiful photography and no big deal. In those days, you could take a picture of a baby in a bath tub (as was common for that time) and not have the local photo processor call the police on you. (exaggeration but it did happen) </p>

<p>Focus bracketing would be a great idea. I would add making "stop down focusing" easier since there may be a small difference in focus plane at e.g. F4 and F11. </p>

<p>I also lost the battery chamber cover to my D810 on a trip last year. I just used some emergency gaffers tape I always pack with me to cover the hole and make sure the battery didn't fall out. </p>

<p>If you can get a iPad tablet that is directly connected (WiFi or data) to the internet (and social media) for about $10 per month, why can't I get a serious DSLR that is directly connected to the internet. It may require an Android or IOS interface. The camera makers need to start fully cooperating with AT&T, Verizon, and others and get with the program. I just got back from an extremely popular tourist town in Japan (Hakone) and almost no one was using a DSLR. They were too busy taking photos from their smart phones and posting them on social media. </p>

<p>I had no intention of being a collector but it looks like I've become one by default. My first camera was my dad's Contax IIIA and a couple of lenses. I've not only kept the IIIA and had it refurbished but I've added another couple Zeiss lenses to fill out the line. I don't use it but it sure is pretty to look at. My second camera from the 70's was a real live Nikon F with normal prism. I do have a bunch of Nippon Kogaku lenses that aren't worth very much so I've made this a collection also. Finally, I ultimately gravitated towards and RB 67 Pro S with 50, 140, and 360. I've kept this collection also although it would make a fine boat anchor. Got some outstanding images with it through.<br> <br> http://mdougherty.com/100-THEPHOTOEXPERIENCE/170-EQUIPMENT/200-equipment-contax-iiia-htm.htm<br> <br> http://mdougherty.com/100-THEPHOTOEXPERIENCE/170-EQUIPMENT/300-equipment-nippon-kogaku-htm.htm</p> <p> </p>

<p>I use to calibrate my Dell Ultrasharp monitors but after using the same brand for many years, I'm kind of familiar with their color gamut so I haven't calibrated my latest 24" Ultrasharp monitor. In post processing, I use CC and some plugins to process my images. When I'm done, I quickly run Photoshop Auto Levels to see if it does much correction to my image. If I can't see a difference, that image generally prints pretty nicely on my Epson 3880. If it doesn't, I start over but that seldom happens. The reasoning behind my process is that the ambient lighting conditions in my office change and so does my mood. Sometimes, based on subject, I may just prefer a lighter or darker image. Also, keep in mind that you don't have back lighting on your prints so I lighten mine on the monitor about 7-10% before printing them on Epson paper. </p>

<p>Advancements in photographic technology have made me a collector. First, in the 60's, I had the opportunity to archive my Contax IIIA and a bunch of Zeiss lenses for a Nikon F and a bunch of Nippon Kogaku lenses. I never sell most of my older equipment. Then I gravitated toward a Mamiya RB67 Pro S and several Mamiya lenses. That all changed when I bought my first D2H. I never looked back to film and now I have collection of Zeiss, Nikon F, and Mamiya RB 67 equipment. I prefer to call myself a collector and not a hoarder. With the onslaught of the digital era, I have actually sold some of my older digital equipment to upgrade to newer and better digital equipment. I will never sell some of my old film equipment, especially the Zeiss. </p>

<p>When HP originally introduced the photo printer, each new ink cartridge had its own new printer head. This was a little more expensive than an ink cartridge by itself but a superior solution to printer problems experienced today. </p>