pics

<p><strong>"Was the patent created as a defensive weapon in case they have to go to legal war against a competitor like <a title="" href="http://alibaba.com" data-skimwords-word="alibaba.com" data-skim-creative="500005">alibaba.com</a> or other another future online retailer portal?"</strong><br /> <br /> Google is just hoping that by combing enough metadata and background info on photos they can catch someone "violating" their patent. Average photographers would most likely not be targeted, (though you never know) but certainly this would be used against up and coming or well heeled business competitors. Being that the Patent Office would currently accept a process-based patent on changing a flat tire alot of people are submitting things like this while the going is good.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The U.S. patent office is apparently in a rubber stamp, approve-anything mode. I guess Google figured "why not?" People (and apparently companies like Google) having been flooding the office with bogus patents mostly in the hopes of shaking down a true innovator sometime in the future for some cash. It's a hedge on winning a future lawsuit more than it is trying to protect one's invention or idea.</p> <p>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130408/08244222623/new-study-uspto-drastically-lowered-its-standards-approving-patents-to-reduce-backlog.shtml</p>

<p>The demand for the F5 makes sense to me. For those who have only shot digital but want to experiment or shoot an occasional roll of film, the F5 will allow them to use all of their modern Nikon lenses with a pro body without spending a ton of money. (F6's are still relatively expensive used)</p>

<p>More from the Mojave Desert</p><div></div>

<p><strong>"Sounds as if Nikon are trying to address the inate fragility of nanocoatings. "</strong></p> <p>Regardless of whether or not Nikon should be using the correct elongated chemical compound name for it's coating, I haven't heard this before. Nanocoating is applied to internal elements, not to the front element and thus not subjected to the hazards of cleaning (which is what fluorine coating primarily addresses.) The Fluorine coating is totally unrelated and is more or less like putting "rainex" or teflon on the front element to help shed water and make for easier cleaning.</p>

<p><strong>"Obviously the D300 was replaced by the D300S in 2009, and Nikon officially discontinued the D300S around November 2011 when it became illegal to sell EN-EL3e-based products in Japan due to its exposed battery contacts."</strong></p> <p>Interesting, I did not know that. In light of such info I guess that Nikon selling a discontinued, out-dated camera for a premium price explains why it lingers on for so long in the market place.</p>

<p>Yep, no ttl. Manual pass through only.</p> <p>http://flashhavoc.com/yongnuo-rf-603-ii-released/</p> <p>The specs from the above link under "improved features" states that the hot shoe is manual pass through only. I don't use TTL and don't own a Nikon speedlight so I can't say I have verified this, but it seems to be the case.</p>

<p>I did a little night shooting in the Mojave Desert with some speedlights.</p><div></div>

<p><strong>"It's not the only camera that Nikon has kept making in small numbers for a long time; the F3HP was made for about 20 years, continuing for years after the F4 had been discontinued and replaced by the F5."</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>I was more referring to digital cameras (DSLRs in particular). The rate at which technology has improved over the last 10-15 years makes it highly unusual to keep a DSLR on the market for 7 years. Film camera models being produced relatively unchanged for 20 years is a little bit different.</p> <p><strong>"replacing the Df and D610 with models that have Multi-CAM 3500 instead of 4800."</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>I would like to see that as well (and put it a durable D300/D800 style body). I think a FF sensor with anywhere from 16-24 megapixels put into a D300 body would satisfy those calling for a D400 replacement (unless you are heavily invested in DX lenses). I know its hard for Nikon to please everyone, but for me 36 MP is overkill so a D610 sensor would be perfect in a better body with the 3500 series autofocus and would make it a little cheaper than a D800 as well.</p>

<p><strong>"I am sure that Nikon learned their lesson so that they wouldn't be stuck with a bunch of remaining D300S that had to go on fire sale. My guess is that there are very few of them remaining so that they simply don't care."</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Yes, very possible indeed. It just seems odd that the D300 is the only camera kept alive all these years while no other model made during the same time span has lingered for such a long time. I would assume (incorrectly perhaps) that every model eventually has leftover units that are hard to sell once the latest and greatest comes out. It has to be some sort of record for a digital camera being on the market. The only other possibility I can think of is that there has been no comparable replacement for the D300 so it is kept available for the very small number of people (in Nikon's eyes) who want a prosumer DX body.</p>

<p><strong>"It is like buying and selling stocks. You cost once upon a time is totally irrelevant. For example, say you bought some Enron stock in year 2000 at a high price. Because they have since gone bankrupt, your holding is still worthless, regardless of what you paid."</strong><br /> <br /> I think we all agree on that (with the exception of Nikon). I wasn't justifying the price or saying it was a good deal in the year 2014, only speculating as to why they are still sold new for so much money.</p> <p><strong>"Incidentally, you can say whatever you want about how great the D300/D300S is/was. However, $645 from KEH reflects its true market value today"</strong><br /> <strong><br /></strong>I said the D300 was a great camera for its <em>time</em> (and outside of the sensor it still is). If you are a heavy cropper or have a need for super high ISO's,you will see some limitations, but outside of that it compares pretty well to what is available in the DX market today. However like I said, in no way would anyone in their right mind buy a new one for that price. Nikon is perplexing in continuing to advertise a 7-8 year old DSLR for close to the original cost of when it was new. I agree that they should just dump them on the market for about $600 and at least recoup some of the cost and allow people to get a good camera for a reasonable price.</p>

<p>There are two versions of the RF-603. The original 603 and the updated 603-II (better). This link covers the major differences of the Yongnuo manual triggers:</p> <p>http://flashhavoc.com/flash-trigger-guide-manual/</p> <p>1) Yes, but I believe it only does it with the dedicated flash it is advertised as being compatible with. 603 C's for Canon and 603 "N's" for Nikon. I'm not 100% sure on this though since I always disable the sleep function on my flashes. The only difference between the N and C versions is the contact pin layout fits either Nikon and Canon for the flash awake feature. Other than that they will fire any flash since these are manual triggers and all that really matters is the center pin. There is also a number after the trigger model (RF-603 C2 for example). That just designates what cable is included in the package for remote camera triggering of different camera models.</p> <p>2) No it is manual pass through only.</p> <p>3) If you are talking about mounting an on camera flash on top of the trigger then no it wont. Turning off the transmitter disables the pass through function. (At least on mine it does). If you want to do this it's another reason to opt for the 603II over the standard 603. The original version doesn't have a locking collar for the camera hotshoe and a top heavy flash sitting on it is an accident waiting to happen. The original 603 also has the on/off switch on top, meaning it is difficult if not impossible to get to it with a flash mounted. The 603II relocated the switch to the side.</p> <p>4) No.</p> <p>5) I had some issues with the first set I ordered. The most recent one's I am using have been 100% but probably not up to Pocket Wizard standards in terms of build quality or long term durability.</p> <p>6) It's hard to keep track of the myriad of triggers coming out of China these days but probably not much cheaper.</p>

<p>What kind of manual flashes do you have?</p>

<p>The D300s is the last of the "Pro" crop body cameras and the price reflects that. When the D300 was first released (basically same camera minus video) it received top marks for image quality and build quality. The sensor design has long since been surpassed in terms of megapixels and low light performance but everything else about it is as good or better than any current DX body being sold (in my opinion.) The heft and build quality is on par with Nikon's high end pro bodies and you will notice this when you pick it up and compare it to a plasticky D3xxx - D7xxx series camera. I also prefer the pro type control layout as well. It is still very capable but nevertheless I can't imagine anyone buying one of these for $1600 and I am amazed they are still for sale new at B+H. I guess Nikon is going to sell them at a price that reflects the manufacturing cost even if it take the next 10 years to clear the inventory. I think it would be great if they would put the D610 sensor in a body like this.</p>

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

<p>I second the recommendation to check out the Strobist.com site for some good info. For $500 I would be inclined to buy a 1-3 high quality items as opposed to a bunch of inexpensive gear that won't last or will under perform once you realize it's limitations. You have one flash and a reflector. If it was me I would add some additional lights. You could spend all or most of it on a very excellent light like the Paul C. Buff Einstein. (Really nothing out there is better for the money) However you would have no money left for another stand, modifiers or triggers and you would still need to spend money on a power supply if you wanted to use it outside of the studio. Therefore I would add some additional speedlights. This isn't a handicap by any means and you can do a lot with a 2-4 speedlights. Just look at guys like Joe McNally. Search the used market or or look for well made, relatively inexpensive manual flashes like the Lumopro LP-180. They cost $200 new. Don't go buying $600 Canon EX RT's as you can accomplish your goals for a lot less money. If you feel the need to go with TTL look for older used models. Then, depending on how many lights you buy and how much money is left, look for a decent stand. Radio triggers are also nice, but you can save money and still get the job done by buying a couple 16 ft. PC cords or utilizing optical slaves if conditions allow. One a side note, make sure any speedlight you buy has a PC or 3.5mm jack for sync cords as well as a built in optical slave. If it lacks these two things do not buy it period! Some mid-low end Nikon/Canon flashes lack these. As far as modifiers go everyone has an opinion, but I say an umbrella is pretty much a must to start out with. They are cheap, versatile and always come in handy. Get one with a removable cover that lets you use it both as a shoot-through and reflective version.</p>

<p>I'd start with just the bare essentials and add things as you deem them necessary. If you are starting from scratch and budget is a concern I would go with one speedlight (TTL isn't a requirement for studio work), a light stand, a reflective/shoot-through umbrella and a 16 ft. PC sync cord. I'd probably also get a set of color correction gels and perhaps a $5 dome diffuser for the flash as well. There are better modifiers for certain situations but you can do a lot with an umbrella and they can be had for $20 or so. Even if you progress in your setups and gear, those several items will always be useful and money well spent.</p> <p>If you stick with it and enjoy artificial lighting you will most likely get all those other modifiers and accesories Joe is talking about (and then some), but it's not necessary from the get-go and you will probably learn faster by keeping things simple initially. Since you said you are just starting out I assume this is simply for your own learning experience and you aren't attempting to start a professional studio tomorrow. If you add things slowly over time you can research the equipment more thoroughly and usually end up with better stuff that will serve you longer and suit your needs better even if it does cost more than buying a kit outright. You don't need monolights to get started and depending on what you do you may never need them. In the event that you quickly realize that this type of shooting isn't for you then at least you didn't spend a ton of money and a flash is always good to have anyway.</p>

<p><strong>"Also, I still don't buy the "out-resolving the lens" crap. People have been saying that since the Nikon D2x came out"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Agreed. Using a film camera as an example, a LF or MF camera with a 30-40 year old lens designed with lower grade technology (less resolution) is going to out resolve 35mm no matter what Canon "L" lens or Nikon Nano-coated glass you are using. Now put an equally well designed lens on the LF or MF camera and it will look even better, but clearly the lenses aren't going to be holding you back from achieving the better resolution that a bigger/better film format or digital sensor provides.</p> <p>I also don't really think that the resolution differences between 24 and 36 MP is anything to loose sleep over or dump a system for. It just seems like there is a lot of misinformation out there (some of it industry generated) over the need to spend a boatload of money on lenses just because a camera has 36 megapixels.</p>

<p>I found this review interesting.</p> <p> <p>I don't own one but searched around since I was intrigued at the possibility of an affordable 600mm option. It seems like a decent lens if your main concern is having the flexibility of that particular zoom range. However, as you would expect from a super zoom like this it isn't easy for manufacturers to make them tack sharp across the zoom range and the compromise seems to be somewhat soft image quality towards the long end. In the examples and comparisons he shows, a Canon 400mm f/5.6 with a teleconverter is sharper than the Tamron zoomed out to 600. The same Canon lens cropped to 600mm equivalent in post production was still sharper than the Tamron shot natively at 600mm. So if you plan on only shooting more towards the long end then that might be an option as well for a halfway reasonable price.</p>

<p>Yes I agree totally. I'm just referring to the notion that using anything other than top end glass on a D800 effectively turns it into a 16 MP camera (or something along those lines.) The limiting factor is still the sensor and not the lens. Most medium format and LF lenses have lower resolving capabilities than 35mm systems but yet the images still have much greater resolution due to the larger film/sensor size. More MP just means the sensor is coming a little bit closer to what the lens is capable of resolving, not the other way around. It also means it will resolve more abnormalities in the lens. The larger you blow up the image the more prevalent these abnormalities (and fine detail that would fall apart in lesser sensors) becomes. Lower MP cameras didn't show these abnormalities as prevalently because they aren't resolving as much fine detail period. So I guess what I am saying is that any lens will show more resolution on a 36 MP camera as opposed to a lower MP camera, but any uncorrected faults will be more visible as well due to the fact that one can enlarge the image to a greater degree that wasn't possible before. Using the absolute best glass will minimize these imperfections (as has always been the case) but isn't a prerequisite to obtaining images with greater resolution on a camera like a D800.</p>

<p><strong>"I'm under the impression that Nikon has the megapixels but only a few lenses that really match the sensor's quality"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Not true. Both companies have nearly identical lens lineups in terms of image quality across the board. Both of their higher end "pro-grade" lenses are pretty equal to all but the most die hard pixel peepers. It's a bit of a myth that 36 mp is out-resolving lenses. It isn't. Even a low end bargain grade lens will give better resolution on a D800 vs. something with less megapixels. The better glass you have the more resolution you will have, but that isn't something new with the arrival of 36 MP cameras. You don't need the absolute best glass to get some of the benefits of 36 MP. Most of that idea has to do with a marketing gimmick put on by Nikon "recommending" certain lenses that they felt worked "best" with a D800. Needless to say almost all of them were in the $1800+ range. Good glass gives better results with any camera and it isn't something unique to a D800. Those same lenses would also give better results D3200 or D610 over a kit lens.</p> <p>As a side note however I don't think any of this is worth selling of your entire system to go to Nikon. (and I shoot Nikon)</p>