cabrabesol

<p>I've found that some fake ML3s work in a lot more useful way (the fake is one reported in the site in the case). The simple enhancement is that the fake lets you take images in sequence without having to push the button again, just keep it pressed. I've found it so useful that I bought (still spending a lot less than for one Nikon original) six of them (2 EURO each). I can even not bother loosing one ! (a frequent event for me). Had to buy new batteries, though.</p>

<p>Insert an empty card in the first slot, then put the current (defective) one into the second. This time che camera should start correctly (without the little green light on the back staying on). Format the second card (hopefully after copying the picture files on a computer). Hope it works. I' ve already had a similar problem and resolved it in that way. Think that there already is a firmware update aimed to fix some problems with cards(i did not update, feel no trust in Nikon's abilities in software).</p>

<p>Edward,<br>

just checked the link. It works for me but I'm subscribed to the flikr D7000 group.<br>

The OP has not specified where he is noticing the shift. Personally I had a lot of troubles in having a good monitor calibration while trying to get reds looking red from the D7000 (and from the D80 too :) on a pair of HP monitors till I've found a neat calibration. What are the numbers telling you (for numbers I intend the rgb triple or the a/b channel lab values obtained with a eyedropper tool, obviously you have to know the desired ones too) ?</p>

<p>Try using imagemagik convert with the same file in input and output. I had a similar problem with latex. Seems that some current jpg generators are inserting infos in the exif part of the file that is not accepted by old applications. Applying imagemagik cleans up the file. Let me know if it is the case.<br>

convert image.jpg image.jpg</p>

<p>Dennis, the slideshow is there, they jut moved the icon.</p>

<p>I think that you may do a better job for yourself buying a D90 (more ore less with current prices we are speaking of half the price of the D7000).<br>

The reason is quite simple: action shots require anticipation, there will never be a camera fast enough, or an AFS as well. If you pretend to shoot when the action happens you will always be late (search for the works of Mark Chirghizi, even for the human brain, certainly faster than a D3 whatever when taking pictures, anticipation is a need in vision), once you will learn that you will be in a position to understand better what you really need or not, till then may opinion is to spend the less.<br>

20 or 30 years ago great sport shoots where taken with totally manual cameras how did they ? Easy, they anticipated, waited in focus for the place where the action was supposed to happen. Did they have failures ? plenty, as much as today.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If we stay on psychology of vision theoretic state of the art its hard to think to spot something that in some ways was unattended. I think that the difference you are about has more to do with the consciousness and duration of the process.<br>

"Inventio" may be an interesting word to add to you etymology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventio<br>

You may also find interesting "the treatise on Painting" by Leonardo Da Vinci where he spends several words on the concept (translated as invention) found here: http://www.archive.org/details/treatiseonpainti001974mbp</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alexander while I agree on the low performances in low light of the D80 I think that it is the lowest entrance for viable use of manual focus lenses. Even without the related magnifying eye cup, that I have always mounted. I've already posted some exmmples of nikon manual focus lenses in my blog. <a href="http://onlandscape.blogspot.com/2009/07/back-from-corsica-rocks-1.html">Todays posted images</a> are all made with a 24mm f2.8 ais with a guessed exposure. The only real problem I'm finding in using mf lenses is in the lack of Dof preview.</p>

<p>Have a look at the Nikon AF 28-70 f/3.5-4.5D its small, light and at f8/f11 is a pretty good performer. You can find a test on photozone.de</p>

<p>You can always meter with an external meter or by aproximation using the histogram, sunny 16 rule is still working (best portable and universal metering system :-). That is what I do with my D80 (I mostly use a sekonic external meter, but handheld the histogram is more practical). I have found the quality of the 24AIS 2.8 pretty good (or more than enough). Shun is correct about the restrictions. <a href="http://onlandscape.blogspot.com/2009/05/fondovalle-upper-side.html">This picture</a> , as an example, was taken with a 24 AIS f2.8 stopped down to f11. The IQ was good (enough), I had much more problems with the white balance in post processing, that could be, but I have no empirical tests, a more interesting reason to go with the D300.</p>

<p>Neither of the two. I would be more procline to variations between the nominal and the actual aperture in the old lens. If you want to make a comparison you should have the same histogram not necessarily the same settings. It is true that modern glass has better light transmission properties but a modern zoom has also more lenses leveling out the advantage.</p>

<p>All you need is a hot shoe sync adapter (universal). See this as an example (find out the less expensive that suits).<br>

http://www.adorama.com/NKAS15.html</p>

<p>Be careful with thirty part. While they are pretty good on DX format they may be not up to the task in FX formats. I think it is better if you experiment with some lower speed nikons. Have a look at 28-70 3.5/4.5 at f8 and f11 it is good and could be a good starting point (and a very cheap one). In the old screw af family there are several inexpensive jewels if you do not care to much about luminosity.</p>

 

<p>Se vuoi spiegarti meglio scrivimi pure al mio indirizzo, in Italiano: mauro@preciso.net, purtroppo non posso darti indicazioni sui flash perche non li uso.</p>

<p>The 50 is good to have. As for the rest keep everything and consider expanding on a 12-24 the hole left between 24 and 28 is not that great, or if you like primes look for a used 20mm. BTW the 28-70 is very nice as a performer when stopped down from f8 to f16.</p>

<p>Both the lenses you mention are optically good when stopped down from f8 to f14 . Construction and feel is instead pretty poor (if not ugly). You can forget the VR on the 50-200 and find it used on ebay for 100-130 $.<br>

A do not have the 18-55 anymore, I have found a good copy of tamron 17-50 f2.8 for 220$. Bought the 50-200 (not VR) for its weight. I am using it more and more and at the said the the 80-200 F2.8.<br>

If I was you, and given your budget, I would look for the said couple (used and without VR) plus a good flash (not Nikon), you can find a Metz 45 for 60/100 $ (and maybe less). You will have to learn how to compensate for some limitations and lack of automation in flash exposure.<br>

The D80, that I own and use, is not really good in low light. You can't go over 400ISO retaining a good image quality, so forget to use it handhold in low light even with really fast lenses or VR unless you are looking for camera and motion blur. Consider this: on a DX body with a 200mm lens you will need at elast 1/300 to handhold it successfully (1/75 with VR). 1/75 and f5.6 (at 200mm) at 400ISO requires some more light then generally available in internals (except, maybe, in sport environments), and this is to stay on the best condition you could have (VR). That's why you need a flash.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nikon's price increase seems more a manoeuvre to increase sales in the short time, if you really need to make price increase you don't trumpet it so much before (as Canon is doing in a more homeopatic way). I don't buy into the Yen Dollar or Euro increased delta against the Yen, if you look at it on a time scale of ten years you will see that currencies went back and forth a lot. I am more on the side of thinking that Nikon is making some weird marketing operation, maybe just to have a measure of how far they can get with their customer base (or suckers ). However this morning I went to a big photography store in Milan and they had plenty of Nikons (D300 and D700) on the shelfs while there was a waiting list for the Canon D50 and D5 mkII of at least a month. Fortunately I bought almost everything I will need in Nikon products for the next year (and maybe more) in the past two, then, maybe I will decide that it is not worth to be Nikon's a turkey :-D</p>

<p>From the pictures you publish and supposing that the kind of photography you are in is landscape (urban) it may be better to consider a tripod as a competitive advantage. Not even a f1.0 or larger :-D will give you as much. Learning to live with a tripod will require a lot of time and effort. I forced myself a long time ago to always work on a tripod. Now it is almost natural. Go for a Chinese one, they are almost as good as the more expensive Gitzos and Manfrottos for a fraction of the price and btw a bit less expensive than a relatively fast zoom and the price point is around 200/300$.<br>

But if the pictures you display are not representative of your aims then, well, maybe a nice investment could be to sit down and ponder what exactly you want to do before buying hardware of any kind.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would go with the kit. It is the one that gives you more flexibility. In the future you may decide to change the 18-55 with a 17-50 2.8 or simply add a wider zoom. The 55-200 is pretty good all alone (it may be a bit ankward in manual focusing, well, to be honest, it is a pain in the ass in that regard :-).</p>

<p>I agree with <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=276104">Eric Sande</a> the 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 is a great lens when stopped down to f8. I paid mine 80$ on ebay. BTW see http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AF28-70 for a competent evaluation.</p>

Brian,

there are many theories of photography as Art and even more if you look at what is called Art in general. For that

reason you will not find a book but many books and many points of view. Things get worse if you dig into genres

(as Landscape or Portrait or Pornography).

 

A good place to start could be the nice <a href="http://photohistory.jeffcurto.com/">history of photography

podcast</a> or the recent series from BBC: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/photography/genius/">The Genius of

Photography</a> online <a href="http://www.santafephotogallery.com/?p=video_room">here</a>. At the end it is

possible

that you will find yourself even more confused. One reason is that some times one looks for rules to follow. To

paraphrase "Hellboy": "There

is no such thing". In this I agree with the previous posts about the need of practice either in taking or

viewing/evaluating photos.

 

Where I do not agree is on the question of "practice" being more useful than "theory".

I won't get into polemics but let me cite a passage from Leonardo Da Vinci about this:

 

<blockquote>Those who fall in love with practice without science are like a

sailor who enters a ship without a helm or a compass, and who never

can be certain whither he is going.

 

From <a href="http://etext.teamnesbitt.com/books/etext/etext04/8ldvc10.txt.html">The Project Gutenberg EBook of

The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci, Complete by Leonardo Da Vinci</a></blockquote>

Instead of changing I would consider to add (to stay low on the budget) the Nikon 18-35 mm ED-IF

f/3.5 - 4.5 D. It is very nice and around f 8//11/14 it really shines, it has a relatively low cost and you can find some used. A the wide end it also has a nasty field curvature so be very careful while computing DOF with off center foregrounds.

 

However in the mountains I usually find it a bit to long at the wide end. Lately I have started using a lot a Sigma 10/20 with good results. See <a target="_blank" href="http://onlandscape.blogspot.com/2008/10/halloween-landscapes.html">http://onlandscape.blogspot.com/2008/10/halloween-landscapes.html</a>. All have been taken with the Sigma. The sigma too could be found used for reasonable prices.

no my "native language is not Englash". But "sounds" does not mean "it is" even in "Englash".

the same for me. In certain cases whibal or a piece of white something does the job quite well. And btw, before someone jumps in and says that the D700 is better, this is a problem with every white balance system not only of your beloved (and mine) D80.

"I currently own XTi, I was waiting for 5D Mii, after comparing it with D700, it sounds a much better FF camera than 5D m2"

 

you have a funny idea of what is to be considered a comparison. If you did a comparison how could it "sound" ? Is or it is not better ? And on which basis ?

 

Come on lately it seems that this forum is full of nikon sales persons instead of knowledgeable users.