pics

<p>How much longer the film will last depends on the speed of the film and how soon you froze it after it was purchased. Black and white will probably store better than color and obviously low speed longer than high speed. I don't think there is an exact answer, but over the last few months I have shot some rolls of Fuji Velvia that I threw in the freezer in 2005/2006 and they look good as far as I can tell. Any slight color shift is pretty easy to correct in post processing though.</p>

<p>As long as you keep the film in its original unopened packaging you should be ok no matter what. If it's opened, then you risk the possibility of condensation forming, freezing and de-thawing and leaving spots. I have put exposed film back in the freezer if I know it will be a while before I develop them. I have never had any issues with this because the latent image is already on the film before any condensation issues could affect it. Any spots will wash away during developing.</p>

<p>Nikon handled the situation poorly for sure. The fact that the Chinese govt. is suddenly concerned about quality control/consumer protection is humorous to say the least though. Purely political.</p>

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

<p>I own the 24-70 and think it is a very good lens indeed. It's a staple for professionals because of it's build quality and the more than acceptable results across the entire zoom range. Like many high quality "pro-grade" lenses, it is engineered to give high quality results at maximum aperture. Stop any lens down past f/8 and the images all look the same. It is also built very well and I consider the heft and all metal design to be a benefit. Of course at any given focal length there exists a prime lens somewhere that is faster and sharper but that defeats the point of having a zoom. Any faster and sharper than it already is and you can figure the cost would skyrocket along with the already considerable weight. All in all it's a great lens for what it is designed for.</p>

<p><strong>"I wish I could have the money to go FX and I could probably get the D610 but in the lenses area, I am dead if I go FX, so I have to remain a DX’s user"</strong><br /> <br /><br /><br /> <br />I know your dilemma. That's one of the reason's I never understood the advice from online reviews and experts who say "don't waste your time on good full frame glass if you are slapping it on a DX camera." The advice should be to never accumulate more than one DX lens (for wide angle), unless you plan on staying with the format for life. Full frame bodies have have become cheaper over the years and the used market makes them more obtainable. The price of lenses only goes up so it's better to not be in a position where you are forced to revamp your lineup to make the switch.</p>

<p>My 7 year old D300 is still my only DSLR and I use it quite a bit. I am very happy with it. Of course there have been many improvements in resolution and low-light shooting over those years. If someone was to drop a D800 in my lap, I would probably never use my D300 again. When I rationalize it however, my photography wouldn't greatly improve from having a more modern camera. </p>

<p>Eventually I will upgrade, but as of now the money I invested in things like lighting equipment, adding some extra lenses and gas money to find new places to shoot has done far more for my photography than a newer body ever would.</p>

<p><strong>"I would (hypothetically) remove any chips still remaining, and fill the chip with a clear epoxy/resin - say the kind used for repairing windshields"</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Marcus may have extensive training in doing this, but i can't imagine it being a good idea for 99.9% of the people out there. (unless you are just experimenting with a cheap kit lens.) Lens glass is ground to tolerances far beyond what can be achieved with some liquid epoxy and a putty knife. Unless you are going for the Holga look I wouldn't attempt this. Again, with no assurances of how extensive the damage is, I would take a pass.</p>

<p><strong>"The seller is asking $1500. Would you personally buy it?"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Not a chance, not anything close to that. It's just too risky to front that kind of money. Even if you don't notice any apparent loss of image quality, you will probably always be wondering if the images would be better without a gouge in the rear element. (at least I would) Secondly who knows if Cannon would charge $100 or $1000 to repair it. It could be just a superficial scratch but anything more than that and you just bought a money pit that could rival or exceed the cost of a brand new model. If you are looking at "L" lenses, you are presumably interested in build and image quality. There are serious question marks in both of those categories for this particular lens.</p>

<p>Unless he is giving it away I would pass. That's a pretty sizable chip out of the glass IMO. As others have said, damage to the rear element is much more likely to affect image quality than damage to the front element. Also, depending on how the nick was created (was it dropped?), it could also be a sign of more problems internally. The lens mount or internal elements could be knocked out of alignment. I would take a cheaper (but mechanically sound) non "L" lens of an equivalent focal length over that thing any day. </p>

<p>I saw one for sale at a flea market a couple of months ago. The gentleman wanted $400 dollars and I don't think he had many offers. It looked like it would make a nice display piece, but not too practical to actually use it. I may be wrong but I believe the 5 inch roll film these things use is hard/impossible and expensive to get. Developing it would be an issue also. I believe they are pretty limited in terms of being able to adjust f-stops and shutter speed.</p>

<p>I think everyone goes through an "obsession" phase when they discover a new technique or type of equipment. Some of it is genuinely useful and ends up sticking around for the long term, and some it gets old fast and is discarded only to become a source of humor or embarrassment when you look at those photos 20 years from now. I was definitely that way with HDR. Initially I was blown away by what seemed like a game changing way to produce photos. Now I almost never make an HDR image. It can have great uses for certain scenes when implemented in a restrained manner, but a lot of it does look gimmicky. For me it's not the unrealistic nature that bothers me (I strive to make my photos interesting more than I worry about realism), but rather the way in which it has become a cut and paste, blanket approach to making boring photos interesting. </p>

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

<p>I've had my D300 since 2008 and it is still my only DSLR, so I can attest to it's durability and reliability. It's sensor has long since been surpassed by more modern cameras in terms of resolution and high ISO performance. I rarely shoot above ISO 400 though, so it does just fine for me. You definitely get a feel of it's build quality when you pick it up and compare to other lower end/midrange Nikon cameras. I also prefer Nikon's pro control layout and having the option of a built-in PC port for flash use. Also, the D300 only has one CF card slot. The D300s has 2.</p>

<p>I've ordered Nielsen frames numerous times from American Frame and Archival Methods and have had good experiences</p>

<p>Kent while I agree automation is somewhat of a factor over the long term, I don't think it's even close to being the main culprit in terms of the last 10-20 years. Some of it is dependent on the particular industry in question however. The trillions of dollars in exports China has amassed since the mid 90's wasn't generated in addition to the things being created and exported here in the U.S. It has largely replaced them and left us with an economy mostly fueled by debt and the reshuffling of money by the Fed Reserve in order to give the appearance of economic growth. People didn't lose their jobs here in the U.S. manufacturing all sorts of household goods because they were replaced by a robot. They lost them because the factory was shuttered and production moved overseas. The auto industry is a little different in that many of the problems were caused by themselves.</p>

<p><strong>The point is that it's not all made in America and they aren't saying what is and what isn't. But that appears to be a big marketing point for them.</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Well I suppose that would be an issue if they were claiming otherwise, but they aren't, so I still fail to see it as being an issue I guess. I'd be curious to know as well, but I'm not sure I would label this as shady behavior.. They are simply stating something that is true about their products. When I go to their website, I don't see anything about being an American Company or "American-made" on the main page (I have a hard time finding it anywhere actually), so I don't know how big of a marketing tactic it actually is. Regardless of what percentage of their products are made here, the point is that they are employing people here. They are a lot smaller than a Chinese-owned conglomerate that employs herds of people for pennies a day with no regulations and cranks out a product for which they could care less if it fails in a year or two (or in 5 days like one of my Yongnuo triggers and a flash) because they have no reputation to protect and probably produce hundreds of other cheap products as well.</p>

<p>I think Paul C Buff makes great stuff as well. I do know that one of the reasons they can sell for cheaper is that they only sell direct and cut out any middle men. Perhaps Pocket Wizard will do the same thing one day.</p>

<p><strong>"Almost all" is an interesting choice of words.</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Points for honesty. What else should they say?</p>

<p><strong>When Big Business finally turns us into a Third World nation, there will be lots of (crappy paying) jobs</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>What is turning us into a third world nation (if you subscribe to that) aren't businesses. Wherever they set up shop, life generally improves. They are just choosing to do it in Asia these days. They do whatever they are allowed to do by the government to make as much money as possible, that hasn't changed one bit in the last several hundred years. What has changed in recent history is the government passing all of the free trade agreements of the 90's and early 2000's which opened the door for a mass exile of American manufacturing. So needless to say, if a compny like PocketWizard is still maintaining an effort to manufacture electronics in the U.S., they are doing so at a great disadvantage. So now they become a bad guy for charging an amount that keeps them in business in the U.S. or they become a bad guy for sending production overseas. Either way the it's a lose-lose situation for any small business to try to make a profit in the U.S. Apple's relocating of some jobs to the U.S. is a token gesture that is largely symbolic. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I can't disagree with the cost being a factor for me as well. I use the Yongnuo's and while they perform ok for my needs, I have experienced quality control/reliability issues with them. I would expect the PW's to be better made, but at the price they go for it's hard to justify these days. Of course it's not just the name you pay for, but also the fact that they are a rather small company employing people at above slave-wage incomes. Doing business while being based in the U.S. isn't cheap. They are hardly alone in this aspect however.</p>

<p>It looks like sluggish sales in the photographic industry aren't limited only to cameras. Sad to see a good company struggling, but it seems as if the tough economic times have hit them as well. The article also mentions that competition from the Chinese made radio triggers has hurt them quite a bit.</p>

<p>http://www.lightingrumours.com/pocketwizard-layoffs-5468#.Uw65goWmWZh</p>

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

<div></div>

<p><strong>"That said, how has Nikon not introduced a flagship with an updated version of the D800-variant sensor?"</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Probably because it would be tough to get 11fps. from a 36 MP sensor at the moment. Canon and Nikon's flagships have always put a priority on speed and low light performance over maximum megapixel size. Press and field photographers don't necessarily want to deal with excessively large file sizes either, and that is who these camera's are geared for. </p>

<p>If you read the reviews, you can see that many people still experience the same issues/problems with newer Epson printers. Their inkjet printers are the gold standard in terms of image quality but I keep hoping they will put some serious effort into the long term durability/ maintenance issues they suffer from. (paper feeding issues, ink waste etc..) The main reason I have held off on home inkjet printing is that it seems like you need to spend a decent amount of money to keep them running well. They don't like being put away for a year and then brought back into service.</p>

<p><strong>"DxO Pro, Capture 1, Photo Mechanic...And with John Nack moving to Google this month along with Google's wishes to be number 1 in the photo world, not many are still concerned about Adobe being the only horse in town."</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>My thoughts exactly. Unlike CS6, there are several viable alternatives to Lightroom that will get the job done. For me, Lightroom does everything I need but I would put my money on Google eventually releasing a product that rivals CS6 in the years ahead. If/when Adobe decides to go to a CC only plan with Lightroom, I will leave them for someone else as soon as my current version no longer performs as I need it to, or becomes outdated. I have no problems with them offering CC options, but oppose it being the sole way of doing business. Many others obviously feel the same. I have no need for 95% of the updates Adobe releases, so CC does nothing for me in that regards. </p>

<p>Many people learned a thing or two back in 2008 about putting everything on a monthly payment plan and building a business/lifestyle based on a continuous funneling of money to an outside entity on everything from houses to smaller everyday purchases. My philosophy is that I should budget for it, buy it outright, and own it for as long as it does what I require it to do.</p>

<p>Definitely know the fine print and do your research before you buy and get hooked into a payment plan. Sounds more or less like they are resorting to trickery and going the route of cable companies. </p>