pics

<p>-</p><div></div>

<p><strong>"To repeat, sensor size does NOTHING to the DoF in and of itself"</strong><br /> <br /> I think this may be a somewhat confusing statement. Yes by itself sensor size doesn't affect depth of field, but adding the equation of lenses (as most photographers do) it certainly does play a role and I <em>think</em> this is what the OP is asking about. (Although from some of his statements I think he may be confusing the terms field of view, focal length and depth of field.) Anyone who has shot a format larger than 35mm knows you have less depth of field if you choose a lens that gives you the same field of view at the same subject to lens distance as its 35mm equivalent and use the same aperture. Lets say I am in a situation where the subject to lens distance is fixed and I use a 50mm lens on 35mm format camera and shoot it at f5.6. If I then go to the 645 format, choose an 80mm lens (which gives roughly the same field of view at the same subject to lens distance) and shoot at f5.6 as well, the depth of field will certainly be shallower. On a large format camera it would be even more shallow.</p> <p>Yes you can find ways to achieve similar depth of field by adjusting f-stop, lenses, lens to subject distance, tilt-shift etc. but these things are all done to account for the inherent differences in depth of field caused by the different sensor formats.</p>

<p>Without trying to delve into the mathematics and circles of confusion, the smaller the sensor size the greater the depth of field. As sensor size increases, depth of field decreases.</p> <p>From Bob Atkins article on the subject:</p> <p>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html</p> <p>"So the bottom line - and all you really need to know - is that <em><strong>DOF is inversely proportional to format size</strong></em>...Note also that now you can see one of the reasons large format camera users need tilts and swings to get adequate depth of field. With an 8x10 camera you have about 8.5 times LESS depth of field than you do with 35mm for the same image. This also explains why consumer digicams, some of which have sensors 1/6 the size of 35mm film, have such a large depth of field and one of the reasons why it's almost impossible to get blurred backgrounds when using them....So if you make the same size print and shoot with a lens that gives you the same view and you use the same aperture, if you halve the format size you double the DOF, if you double the format size you halve the DOF....."</p>

<p>I've never sold a film camera body and the price they command on the used market today doesn't make it worth while. I still use my D300 (purchased in 2008) as my sole DSLR. It still works well and gets the job done for my needs. Nikon hasn't yet released a camera body that I desire at a price point I can justify and therefore the D300 lives on for me. When/if I do finally upgrade within the Nikon lineup I will most likely keep it.</p>

<p>-</p><div></div>

<p>I saw the video as well and while it is interesting information I doubt it matters to most people. I think he was basically explaining how makers of smaller format cameras don't exactly stick to all the scientific rules of calculating f-stops when labeling their lenses as f1.2/2.8 etc. This article on DP review more or less explains what Northrup goes over in his video and helps shed light on how f2.8 on micro 4/3 isn't exactly the same as f2.8 on full frame in terms of total light gathered and also explains why smaller formats will always suffer in low light shooting compared to FF (assuming equal levels of sensor technology). His gripe was how some of these lenses are labeled as 35mm "equivalents" but they are only applying the crop factor to the focal length and not the aperture. The exposure will look the same but it explains why smaller formats will appear noisier at the same settings and how the confusing definition of ISO comes in to play to achieve the same results. I don't think most people care but for purposes of the article and video you need to multiply the f-number by the crop factor as well.<br /> DP review article:<br /> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care</p>

<p>-</p><div></div>

<p>Both look to be interesting cameras but if it were me I would hold off on buying either until the bugs, kinks and recalls get sorted out from the first batch of cameras. Nikon hasn't exactly had much luck with new camera releases the last few years and has already acknowledged an issue with some D810s and the long exposure issue.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I don't think it would be too hard for them to integrate built in RF power and zoom control to be operated in manual mode. I gave up trying to use Nikon's CLS off camera in outdoor environments so simple power control would make me happy. This could be controlled via a transmitter mounted on the hot shoe. Yongnuo builds radio receivers with group functions and remote power/zoomcontrol into their $70 manual flashes (works reliably in my experience) so it can't be too difficult and it makes me wonder how I lived without it. Of course if you are talking about integrating TTL and going with a Nikon/Pocket Wizard collaboration you will probably end up with an $800 speedlight.</p>

<div></div>

<p><strong>"And we photographers could take advantage of new sensor developments without necessarily having to buy a whole new camera."</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Aside from the technological issues others mentioned, I doubt camera manufacturers would be enthusiastic about such a business model. Especially since some of them don't even make their own sensors.</p> <p> </p>

<p>-</p><div></div>

<p>Who knows then. I did shoot some Ektachrome VS years ago but never noticed any appreciable difference and pretty much stayed with Velvia. I have only shot a few rolls of the newest version and didn't notice anything radically different either.</p>

<p>How are you evaluating the slides? With a loupe/lightbox, prints from a photolab, or via scans on your monitor? In my experience, slide film exposed for optimum quality on a lightbox or projector (their original purpose) often look dark and underexposed with most scanners (the exception perhaps being expensive drum scans.)</p> <p>IMO, for scanning purposes your need to err on the side of over-exposure with Velvia 50 depending on the lighting conditions. Many people felt/feel that the box speed of Velvia 50 is a little optimistic with the "true" ISO being about 40. Any slight underexposure or exposures that give perfect results underneath a loupe often render scans of poor to useless quality. When I edited my bracketed shots of Velvia, I quickly learned that I needed to go with the slightly overexposed slide for scanning and kept the "correctly" exposed slide for projection or lightbox viewing. Pretty much no consumer scanner on the market today is capable of pulling detail out of the shadow areas from even slightly underexposed Velvia 50.</p>

<p>The economy is terrible, cost of materials has increased, more regulations are passed every year that companies are expected to abide by and people have less money to spend. Many companies who make cameras are experiencing financial difficulty of some sort. They can only raise the price so much before the general population (mostly having stagnant or declining income) won't buy the product anymore. </p> <p>The only other option (if they want to stay in business)is to cut production cost. This involves moving production to a country that is less demanding of the companies capital in terms of wages, taxes, permits, regulations etc. etc. There might be some differences in the overall quality of the labor force in such countries vs. Japan in terms of skill and attention to detail, but mostly they will make the camera to the specs Nikon dictates. If a camera strap made in Taiwan is less durable and has less stitching, leather etc., it's because Nikon told them to make it that way.</p>

<p>-</p><div></div>

<p><strong>"- Body of tough magnesium alloy </strong><br /><strong>- Dust and water</strong><br /> <strong>- Continuous shooting</strong> <strong>10 frames / sec</strong>."<br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Nikon seems to have indicated over the last few years that they are not interested in offering these features along with the pro-control, 10 pin connector, and pc sync port, in their sub $3000 cameras. For Nikon, the $1600-$2500 range is apparently "consumer grade/novice."</p>

<p><strong>"I hope it is clear to everybody that the D750 is, in reality, a slight upgrade from the D600/D610</strong><br /> <strong>Personally, I find the D750 model number rather misleading, especially if people feel that there is any linkage to the D700"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>I agree 100% and its really the main thing that annoys me. Nikon knows people have been waiting tirelessly for a "true" D700 replacement. (High quality, pro-spec body, full-frame, and resolution in the 18-24 MP range.) The D800/810 could basically be considered such a camera but the main gripe is the megapixel count/file size which is excessive for many people. Nikon didn't want to build a real D700 replacement for whatever reason (their right.) However, it's almost like they decided to throw the number "7" on this model and hope no one would notice they are really getting the next version of the D600/610 (nice sensor but sitting inside the cheap plasticky consumer grade D5xxx-D7xxx body.) Everyone knows how the model sequences go for the most part: (D2,D3,D4),(D7000,D7100), etc. etc. This new camera is a D650 plain and simple. Nothing wrong with that, but (if Nikon is listening), the people who are waiting for a D700 replacement are....still waiting....</p>

<p>It just irks me that they feel the need to go with the pro-sumer layout on a camera that is "numerically" a continuation of the D700 line. Nikon, for $2200-$2300 we don't want picture modes and running man icons on the dial nor do we want ISO and WB buttons on the back where they are all to easily pressed while handling the camera. 95% of the people buying this camera know how to set exposure. </p>

<p>Sounds like a great sensor and auto-focus system. The pro-sumer body, 1/4000 shutter speed limit and flash sync speed are a let down however. Some of those features cost little to nothing to include and $2200 is a little pricey for Nikon to be holding back on them.</p>

<p>Check all of the contact springs inside the compartment. Depending on the angle it falls, the springs become permanently compressed/bent from the inertia of the batteries violently slamming around and no longer make solid contact with the batteries or battery insert afterwards. If so, reach in there with thin pliers (or whatever you can rig up) and pull the springs back out to where they should be. I used this to "resurrect" a Yongnuo that took a spill and wouldn't turn on afterwards.</p>

<h1 >"How you know when it is time to consider Mirrorless."</h1> <p>When all of the podcasts, magazine articles and industry marketing finally convince you that it is physically impossible to make effective images without a petite camera and that you are foolish for trying to do so.</p>

<p>=</p><div></div>

<div></div>