Mike D

<p>I have an Epson 3880 and the printer page has warned me that I need PK ink and VLM ink. Of course, it would be nice if I could find a cross reference to what these colors these are. Anyone know where I could find a cross reference. I just don't understand why Epson simply can't tell me what color ink I need instead of some cryptic letters. </p>

<p>I did a quick search on FrontPage 2002 compatibility with WIN 10. So far, it's not compatible. Since this is my primary tool for writing and maintaining my web site, upgrading to WIN 10 is a non-starter.</p>

<p>I already knew that I would lose this argument but I was so extremely happy with my images from my Iceland trip and several trips before that (using my current equipment strategy), I felt brave enough to venture forward and offer a few thoughts that really work for me. After all, isn't the entire objective of photography to "get-the-shot". I carry 3 combos with me on all trips, a D810 with 24-105, a D7100 with 17-70 macro, and a Sony A77II with 70-400. Based on my experience after taking over 100,000 images in the field, and I was forced to get rid of one body, it would easily be the D810 and it's the best body I own. I just think that advanced amateurs like myself shouldn't think that full frame is the holy grail. </p>

<p>Q.G...Yes, I've read that a cropped frame body doesn't have more depth of field but if I am trying to take a picture of the exact same scene covering the exact same elements in the image with a full frame, cropped frame, and iPhone, why does the iPhone have the greatest depth of field (tiny sensor), the CF body is second, and the FF is great for blurring a background or foreground. My reference is from "in-the-field" experience, not testing. I am shooting my cropped frame body with a 17-70 macro lens I can get images with very close-up subject elements that I simply can't get with my D810. I've tried many times. In fact, on my trip to Iceland, I only used my D810 with this type of image for the first 2 days and have regretted that decision. After reviewing my images, I immediately reverted back to CF for those types of images. I view camera and lens combos (different sensor sizes) as tools with very different capabilities (based on my shooting style) and view the CF body critical for both for nature and sports. <br> <br> http://mdougherty.com/100-THEPHOTOEXPERIENCE/110-LOCATIONS/15-iceland-south/00-loc-southiceland-15-intro-150718-htm.htm</p>

<p>This post has been up for a while so I thought I'd chime in a couple thoughts of reality, especially about upgrading from a D300 to a full frame body. First, there is no upgrade from the D300 which is a rugged, cropped frame, pro grade, 8 FPS with grip, large buffer (sort of), sports camera. If that's your shooting style, you'll have to move to Canon. Sorry Nikonians. (I'n one also.) I didn't need the rugged part so I added a couple 12 FPS, Sony A77IIs to my photographic tool kit, with Sony lenses of course. If sports is not your primary concern, and you want a cropped frame body, either the D7100 or D7200 bodies are outstanding, providing more dynamic range than anything else on the market. This is really important if you are shooting images with a lot of dark and light content in the same image. Finally, cropped frame and full frame are very different creatures. You just can't go from one to the other with out affecting your personal style. I use both together. In a recent trip to Iceland, I used a FF D810 with 24-105 for large landscape images and a CF D7100 with 17-70 for more personal, close-up, and difficult images. At first, it appears that I am just duplicating my equipment coverage, but the cropped frame body has more depth of field and I achieve a larger percentage of keepers, especially since my technique doesn't have to be quite as precise in difficult shooting conditions. The rest of the time I used my iPhone. <br> </p>

<p>I learned a neat trick a couple weeks ago if you have a filter stuck on a lens, especially polarizing filter. Just place a rubber band around the filter and twist with minimal pressure on the filter. It worked for me. </p>

<p>Both Tustin, CA stores have very busy digital photo processing departments. While I process my own (serious) images a home, Costco is a fantastic place to dump all the images from your smart phone and get reasonable quality prints. BTW, just came back from a trip to Southern Iceland and my new iPhone 6 is fantastic. I suspect the group leader was a little frustrated because all the participants were shooting with their DSLRs / mirrorless cameras and then re-shooting the scenes with their smartphones. Of course those images could be instantly sent back home and even to a Costco Photo lab so you had your prints before you even stepped off the plane back home. Advantage, Smart Phone. </p>

<p>I like my Contax 3A. The body was recently refurbished.</p><div></div>

<p>Norbert, both Tamron and Sigma have 150-600 mm lenses. The Sigma Sport is excellent at 600. On cropped frame, that's 900 mm. Great bird shots with the Tamron are all over the internet. Bird photographers no longer have to dream. Even the Nikon 80-400 on a D7200 is equivalent to a 600. </p>

<p>Also, Chrome on Win 7 no longer works with Facebook in some areas. I even downloaded and installed the latest version of Chrome. No luck. IE works fine. Ironically I had to Google Facebook to find out what was wrong. </p>

<p>When it comes to wanting a D400 (cropped frame, 24 MP), I have lost the argument for the necessity of such a body many times. I've been a loyal Nikon shooter since 1968 with my original Nikon F. I still am an avid Nikon shooter with a D810 and D7200 (excellent cameras) but have had to sneak in a couple Sony 24 MP cropped frame D77-2's, 70-400 G and Tamron 150-600. While these are great combos, especially at 12 FPS, I have had to learn a whole new menu system, buy new lenses, my existing Nikon lenses don't fit, and no one is sure about the future of Sony A-mount. However, for now, I am getting the performance that I need. Even Canon shooters at professional surfing events come up to me wanting know what strange camera am I shooting with at 12 FPS. My older silver, 80-400 use to really confuse them. </p>

<p>I believe there was an interview on the web with the CEO of Fuji last week explaining why they are sticking with cropped frame, mirrorless bodies. Cropped frame has a smaller image circle which allows for a more compact lens. There's little sense in getting a compact mirrorless, FF body and then putting a big, heavy FF lens on it. It's no longer compact. <br> For telephotos, it seems reasonable that a 24 MP cropped frame body would have an advantage over a 24 MP full frame body. If a I crop a FF 24 MP image, it becomes a CF 16 or 18 MP image. I would simply rather have a cropped frame 24 MP image. </p>

<p>The zoom range of the Nikon 16-80 is a significant improvement over my Sigma 17-70 C but the close focus is 1.15 feet versus the Sigma's 8.66 inches. I do a lot of close up shooting so this could be an issue. It's going to be interesting to see the image quality difference between the 2 lenses. </p>

<p>"Sigma does a better job in marketing, ......this way Sigma creates a market for their products before they are even starting production ..." Maybe this is why I buy more Sigma lenses than Nikon. </p>

<p>Shun, even though I mentioned specific lenses, I'm really talking about the concept of potential. If you go to dealer to buy a Chevrolet, there is usually a great looking Vette somewhere in the show room. You have no intention of buying the Vette, but subliminally, it's in the back of your mind. I began using Nikon in 1969 because of all the lenses that it could use. I had no intention of buying all the lenses, but the potential was there. BTW, I didn't mention all the "Red" Nikkor lenses but this is a fascinating area of Nikon lenses that most Nikon user's have never even heard of. <br> http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/</p>

<p>Ilkka, the 6mm fisheye, 58 F1.2, 1200 F11, 200-600, 360-1200, and 1200-1700 zooms. Nikon just finally got around to updating their long out-of-production 800. I bought a used AIS 1200 F11 in user condition for $2,800 in 1998 and sold it for $2,600 last year. Very sharp but flare got the best of it. Couldn't compare to my 1st generation Sigma 300-800 so when someone saw it on the internet and wanted to buy it, here it is. Kind a sad to part with it though. Not too many were manufactured. I still have my original 400 F5.6 in perfect condition which has a real live fluorite lens element. It's the only Nikon lens till now that had a fluorite element. </p>

<p>"Anyway, forget it. I thought I'd bring this new, exciting lens to the attention of photo.net readers. " I like this idea of talking about new lenses with different focal lengths that are incredibly sharp. Just talking about Nikon's updates of existing Nikon lenses can be pretty boring. Within the last year, Tamron introduced an inexpensive 150-600 mm lens with better than reasonable sharpness. I believe the related threads on several different websites produced more interest and enthusiasm for this Tamron lens than all other Nikon lenses put together. For amateurs like myself, photography is is supposed to be fun. Nikon used to be extremely innovative and exciting in the 50's and 60's. Check out the web site below for some of the incredible lenses Nikon used to produce:<br> http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html<br> :</p> <p> </p>

<p>It depends on what you're shooting. My old D7100 (12 MP) captured very nice portraits but when taking scenics in the Eastern Sierra Nevada, it showed its MP weakness. While a 24 MP D7100 is good for wildlife, it want't quite as good as my D810 in Jackson Hole for capturing detailed scenics. Of course if Nikon introduced a 50+ MP body, I'd be very interested. Then I could stop thinking about a Pentax 645 Z. </p>

<p>I remember not to long ago when you had to wait months to get a Nikon D800 or a Canon 5D III. I quick look at B&H's web site and it seems that all DSLR models are currently in stock. Is this because Nikon and Canon increased initial production due to prior shortages? Or could it be that the demand for DSLRs is waning due to alternative camera competition (e.g. mirrorless) or that the world economy is weak? I did look for a Tamron 150-600 and they are in stock but both Sigma 150-600s are out-of-stock. </p>

<p>Jose, I don't know if there is focus breathing because at 1:1 or 2:1, any slight movement and you'll lose the subject. Also because the DOF is so narrow, you really have to shoot closed down. I don't have any expectations that the $360 lens will hold focus as it is stopped down. I took a couple images of an amethyst ring yesterday and reflections off the stone's facets are a real problem. (The lens is so sharp it shows every imperfection in the stones. Ugh.) I have a 62 mm polarizer on the way. At 2:1, the Venus lens seems to open up a whole new field of macro photography for me. The story behind the lens is also interesting. Some guys, in a macro photography group in China, were tired of using extension tubes and closeup filters so they designed and manufactured their own 2X macro lens. </p>

<p>Check out the Venus 60mm F2.8 2X macro lens. On a cropped frame Sony A77 II (or Nikon version), it's a 90 mm lens which reduces the vignetting and gives a little more shooting room. I just got one from China and am in the process of learning how to use it. Technique has to be perfect. I've mounted a LED ring light on the front since it's best to shoot at F16 and you have to focus at F16, which can be very dark. The digital view finder also helps as would Live View on the D7200. There are no electronic connections on the lens so your body has to be instructed to release the shutter when the shutter release is pressed. I also just bought a 6" adjustable camera platform since shooting from a tripod is a requirement, especially at 2X. Of course the main benefit of the lens in that it goes to 2X with no extension tubes. It looks like B&H has begun to sell the lens. Now I just need to find some spiders.<br /> http://petapixel.com/2015/02/02/review-venus-60mm-f2-8-worlds-first-21-macro-lens-infinity-focus/</p>

<p>Canon 7DII - great, fast pro sports body. Sensor little less dynamic range than A77II and D7200.<br> Sony A77II - 12 FPS body, 52 JPEG buffer - I use 2 with Sony 70-400 and Tamron 150-600 - pellical mirror slightly reduces image quality and light sensitivity. <br> Nikon D7200 - 6 FPS but great dynamic range similar to A77II. I use 1 with my Nikon mount lenses. </p>

<p>I did notice the D7200's incredible increase in speed at which all my jpeg images are ready to be viewed. This is great for sports shooters. I can rattle off 20 to 30 images as a surfer is riding a wave and they are almost immediately available to view. Write speed just moved up on my camera priority list. Still not as high as FPS but getting there. </p>

<p>I'm a dinosaur and started my web site with FrontPage in 1999 and a few years later upgraded to FrontPage 2002. Again, all jpg images are 450 pxl for horizontal or 630 pxl for verticals. To this day, the images look properly sized on desktops, laptops, iPads, and iPhones. I didn't do anything. They just came out this way. Maybe I'm just lucky.</p>

<p>It may not apply as much today with fiber optics, but the more pxl ht the image, the longer it will take to open the image in a browser.</p>