josephwalsh

<p>"...looking forward to using my D700 when it arrives."<br>

Congratulations, Jeffrey!</p>

<p>You're welcome, Jeffrey. So often, too often, people ask for advice on P.net and then argue with those whose answers aren't what they wanted to hear.</p>

<p>I don't think you'll ever regret getting a D700.<br>

Now if I had bought a D200 and the D300 was announced a week later I would be most unhappy.<br>

But if a D700x came out tomorrow I'd not regret the D700.</p>

<p>Jeffrey,<br>

I have a D700 and appreciate its high ISO/available darkness capabilities. I also appreciate being able to routinely shoot in better light at ISO 400 rather than 100. Faster shutter speeds almost always lead to better IQ.<br>

I will probably get a D700x or something like it some day. But I'll keep the D700, considering a D700x a kind of medium format camera, but better, because it takes Nikon lenses which we already own!<br>

BTW, I nominate you as "The Most Reasonable Poster" on the Nikon forum.<br>

Excellent thread.</p>

<p>Nice light touch, Jeff.<br>

How close to this version do you think you could come by Photo Shopping only one of the 5 exposures?</p>

<p>"What happened?"</p>

<p>An F3 is a film holder with a shutter.<br>

A D3 is a computer with a shutter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm suspicious of underexposure.<br>

Try rating your 400 film at 200. Negative film, both color and B&W, hate underexposure. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Robert,<br>

Are you familiar with the digital crop factor?<br>

With the exception of the D3/D3x and D700, Nikon DSLRs will make all your lenses behave as though they were 50% longer.<br>

Depending on your lenses and your proclivities, this could be a drawback or an advantage.</p>

<p>Love it, Dieter!</p>

<p>attched is from yesterday at gallery where I show in San Antonio, TX<br>

Merry Christmas and best for the New Year to all</p><div></div>

<p>An amazing bird is the pelican<br>

His beak can hold more than his belly can.<br>

Ogden Nash<br>

Good flyers...not so good landers at times.</p><div></div>

<p>Shun, Since you have said you have no sentimental/emotional tie to your "tools" and since " there are 4 of them doing absolutely nothing in my house" I propose you conduct a raffle/drawing/contest/whatever...some kind of mechanism to give them away to film shooting Nikon P.netters.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Santa Fe to Taos on the High Road.<br>

Truchas, Las Trampas, Chimayo...mountain villages that have been there for centuries.<br>

You'll think you have gone to another country.</p>

<p>Also, as one accustomed to primes for a couple of decades I find the Bulbous Wonder flexible rather than restrictive. An exceptionally good (albeit exceptionally large) 18mm that can go wider or less wide is, to me, quite wonderful.<br>

Of course, in a world populated with 16-300mm DX lenses it seems less than remarkable.</p>

<p>I am not about to quote Dr. Rorslett's private email but here's the jist.<br /> I asked him about the two lenses. He recommended the 14-24.<br /> I wrote back pointing out I wished to use the lens close and low to seascapes and was concerned about salt spray and blowing sand with no UV filter.<br /> He dismissed my concerns...said I should keep it clean :-)<br>

The implication I derived was that the 14-24 was so superior it negated any of its other obvious disadvantages.<br>

<br /> Too, I think it depends on your vision. For quite a while I had a Sigma 10-20 on a D200. Looking at metadata I found I was using it at 10mm a lot, under 15mm most of the time. Just as bird photographers feel they never have enough---let alone too much---telephoto, if you really like wide, you really like w - i - d - e.</p>

<p>Jake,<br>

FWIW:<br>

I have, out of necessity, gone totally digital now.<br>

No longer have my Horseman 4x5 monorail, Nikon F100, Mamiya RB, Fuji 645 and Fuji 6x9. And I'm fine.</p>

<p>But man, I do miss my Mamiya 7II with the 50, 80 and 150.  Small, light, quick/easy to focus, fabulous optics producing fabulous negatives.<br>

Best camera I've ever had.</p>

<p>As you can see, Kira, we dread the lens question like a lush dreads a bottle of Jack Daniels.<br>

;-)</p>

Good point, Kent, and one I had not thought of.

I do quite a bit of low light / night work and often have light sources in the frame or just outside it so coating is a big factor.

Rob,

That I have not tried...I called my son and arranged to see him in a few days to try your suggestion.

My computer is a 6 month old Dell Inspiron 530 running Vista (shudder) 32

Ronald, Martijn,

Like I said, I used several different Sandisk and Lexar cards with same results.

I always format in the camera.

Well, it won't let me send them..says there's an "error" in the file.

Anyway, it shows as a small rectangle of pixilated color. This occurs at random places within an image, just one per image. I say small...in an 8x10 print it would probably measure .5 x .75 inches.

Sometimes (1-200) there is a "smear" and color overlay, usually magenta, that cover almost half the image.

I did try shooting jpegs...same results. Different CF cards, same results. (I'm using Lexar and Sandisk)

Here's an ongoing problem: About one out of 25 of my downloads have these defects. Both D200 and D700 show it.

I'm shooting RAW and downloading with Lightroom 2.

Changing card reader didn't help.