cc_chang1

<p>Thank you for the help. I eventually put a tiny bit of car wax over the metal pins and the metal rails, let dry and then polish as I would with a car and this solves the problem. The wax does not attract dirt. Some time people are complaining about connection issue with these transceivers and I think some of that is caused by not pushing the device deep into the shoe for full contact.</p>

<p>I ordered a pair of these about 2 years ago and they were tight to be pushed into the hot shoe on day-1. Today when I was ready to use them, neither one could be pushed into the hotshot — they were very tight. They can be connected to a Yonguo flash without any problem, and this flash as well as a Nikon SB600 can be attached to my D7100 without any problem. I don't use these transceivers much so should I somehow lubricate the pins? Using light machine oil is probably a bad idea so how about car wax, which we were told to use to lube the lift for the lift gate. These transceivers do work if they are pushed in place in the hotshoe but they are just too tight ... Help, please.</p>

<p>In my experience of owning both Olympus and Panasonic cameras, Olympus, e.g., E-PL5, EM10-II, etc, has much better face detection. This shows up particularly when the face is not entirely in view. The Olympus FD will often lead the AF to the head so you won't miss much. With Panasonic, it much too easily will focus on something else that is more contrast than the human face.</p>

<p>CPM: that's all right.</p> <p>I am really excited by the 14-20/2 lens. As Dieter wrote, this lens is much more useful than the Sigma 18-35 because it is wider on the wide end. FF eq of 20mm is very nice. At the long end, I much prefer 30mm which yields the FF eq of 45mm, which I find much more useful than 35mm, which is too long (50mm eq) in tight space. I love the Sigma 30/1.4 Art, much more so than the Nikon 35/1.8.</p> <p>As a general walk around/vacation kit, this lens plus 85/1.8 will cover a very good range and makes for a simple 2-lens kit that is not too terribly heavy. Finally third parties are addressing Nikon's lack of good DX specific (more compact) fast wide angle lenses.</p>

<p>??=Despite its appearance as a very compact lens.</p>

<p>The upcoming Tokina 14-20/2 for DX is your answer:<br> http://www.dpreview.com/news/4439209905/tokina-announces-ultra-wide-14-20mm-f2-lens-for-canon-and-nikon-crop-sensor-dslrs</p>

<p>My main problem with this lens, and many older lenses, is flare. If there is any light in the frame, indoors or out, it flares. It is also a very heavy lens. However it seems that you don't mind the flare ... </p>

<p>As a long time Nikon user who also uses m4/3, you can "adapt" Nikon lenses<em> if</em> you already have them <strong>to save money.</strong> Otherwise get many of the new native manual focus lenses made specifically for the m4/3 mount, some are cinematic-focused. Many old MF lens from Nikon or others usually have issues with flare and poor performance wide open (especially for f1.4 or faster lenses) in the area of CA and edge sharpness. There is no point of going out of you way to find these on the used market where QC could be another issue to worry about. </p>

<p>In short the 12-35 is an outstanding lens in its own right. For the same subject and background, the 24-70 may give you better subject isolation, however, but you can easily address this with a small and fast prime such as the 45/1.8 or the 60/2.8. </p>

Hi Barry: dpreview now apparently checks SS routinely and have found G7 to still has this problem. SS has been solved for Olympus cameras after firm ware upgrade to introduce electronic first curtain. I am assuming SS can still occur in GX8 since it does not have EFC. SS can be addressed by using its full electronic shutter however but this increases noise. The SS in G7 is slight though so this may not substantially impact overall IQ. Furthermore, by being heavier,SS may be now under control in GX8. I am leaning toward EM5-II, however, which should soon be much cheaper than GX8. If you do get the GX8, let us know how it performs. In particular, if you have the 20/1,7 lens, we would love to know whether it still has the banding problem with GX8's new sensor.

<p>See here for the issue of AF-assist lamp and the grip:<br /> http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a-note-about-camera-reviews/panasonic-camera-reviews/panasonic-gx7-review.html<br /> "For instance, that grip on the front? That positions my hand so that it blocks the AF Assist Lamp, a common problem on lots of cameras these days. I'm not a big fan of the AF Assist Lamps in the first place, but there are times when they're useful. But if to use them you have to change how you hold the camera, that's a bad choice. But then again, the bigger lenses all block the lamp, too (e.g. the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8, especially with the lens hood on). Features that are often compromised sometimes aren't worth having, in my view." <br /> <br /> In terms of designing theme, I would like to see Panasonic defines the purpose of the GX line better. If the GX is intended to provide a more portable photographic system, they should design it to be as small and compact as possible. The grip should be just big enough for holding mostly small lenses, and take out "features" that are not necessary, which in my view is the "complicated" and protruding EVF. I would like them to make the two command dials larger and easier to see and operate. It was not easy for me and others to even notice that there are two dials. May be in use, they are fine but they are too small compared to the very large Exp Comp dial — why does this dial need to be the biggest of all the dials?<br /> <br /> Furthermore, since SONY came along with their NEX and the Alpha lines, m4/3 now has a marketing challenge — if the cameras are of the same size, why should one buy a m4.3 camera with a smaller sensor? It is a tough sale to most consumers that m4/3 has many nice small lenses, because there are small lenses for SONY and Samsung's cameras as well ...<br> The real deal breaker for me is the lack of electronic first curtain. This feature is missing in the G7, and G7 has been tested to show minor shutter shock. After Olympus, as well as SONY, has gone through so much to resolve the issue of SS, it is disappointing that Panasonic's new cameras still have these issues. </p>

<p>I too think that GX8 is bigger than it needs to be — a compact body camera and one with a m4/3 sensor in particular — should be designed to work with mostly small prime lens to result in a light weight and compact system. Otherwise it is hard to make the point that one should by a m4/3 camera but not a mirrorless APSC or FF camera.</p> <p>I think in the interest of making the body more compact and lighter, a tithable EVF is not necessary considering the fact that the rear LED is now fully articulated. I would rather see a built-in flash like the one in GX7. GX8 does not seem to have Electronic second curtain, and G7 has been shown to have shutter shock issues. Is GX8 heavy enough to dampen the vibration to eliminate this issue? GX7 was known to have an issue with the AF assist light, which is blocked by the large lens and the right hand. Has this been solved by the larger GX8? While GX8 is now bigger, its front and rear command dials seem to be smaller, why? In turn, GX8 has a very large exp compensation dial, which is great, but it is disabled in M-mode when auto-ISO is in use, and this just seems very silly. Thus I do not yet see a consistent design theme in GX8, except that they somehow think that American just like larger cameras, no matter what.</p>

<p>Another vote for m4/3 for Nikon shooters, since it makes sense to get a kit that is substantially smaller without too much sacrifice in IQ. </p>

<p>My guess is that when you look at the RAWs, there will be very little difference between them. Even with these images, to my eye, the D7100 looks better with better DR and slightly more details. The D7200 just suppresses the noise more at the expense of DR and detail, although these compromises are small. I would not buy D7200 with the expectation that its high ISO performance is better than the D7100. </p>

<p>Just keep in mind that it is equally important to choose your lens carefully. If you buy a large sensor camera only to use it with a slow super zoom, you may as well shoot with a smaller sensor camera with faster lens. For example when you use a slow lens to shoot at f4.5 at ISO 3200 with a FF camera, you could get similar DR and noise performance with an APSC sensor camera at f 2.8 because you only need ISO 1600. My personal preference for traveling is to shoot m4/3 with f1.8 and f2.8 fast lenses which they have plenty of and are small and not crazily expensive. Panasonic m4/3 in particular is fantastic for video.</p>

<blockquote> <p>although the 35 and 55 primes for the Sony are smaller than DSLR equivalents, the other lenses that are coming are not really much smaller than Nikon lenses and I think the 70-200mm is heavier than the Canon equivalent.</p> </blockquote> <p>While the A7 is small, its grip is very small and it does not have a built-in flash. Its battery is very small too and rated only for 350 shots; by contrast, the battery in D750 tested with the flash on lasts 1,230 shots! You sacrifice camera size for functionalities. In addition, its AF tracking is poor and low light focusing hunts and is slow.<br /> <br /> While the 35/2.8 is a fine and compact lens, it is listed for $900. The Nikon 35/1.8 is a f1.8 lens, not too big, and costs half. Not to mention Nikon has a fine line of f1.8 lens that are compact and reasonably priced. The SONY 70-200/4 is almost exactly the same size as Nikon's 70-200/4 lens. I don't think the A7 offers a real alternative to the D750 class cameras as yet based on your use of the camera.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Panasonic GX100,</p> </blockquote> <p>I think you meant FZ1000.</p>

<p>What is a mirrorless? If you are thinking of smartphone and the good old P&S, then I would suggest you to go to Dpreview to read because with the advance of mirrorless cameras, your question is as broad as asking what a dSLR is. I don't think this is right place for you to learn it all. For this reason, unless your current camera is old/broken and you are not committed to Nikon in terms of lens, just sell the 24-70 and get a cheaper/lighter/better lens for your DX camera. </p>

<blockquote> <p>And I do have a DX Body. … I also never thought about getting another camera, until I saw a couple of people mention that. That's actually a great idea. I like the G-15 idea Craig mentioned.</p> </blockquote> <p>Im my opinions, sell the 24-70 and buy either the Sigma 17-50 which is still f2.8 and has OS (=VR) or the Nikon 16-85, and put some money in your pocket. Shoot this light kit for a while to see if it works. Changing cameras will cost you, and there is a long learning curve to get used to something new. Depending on which camera you have, you may not find a light alternative with a better IQ.</p>

<p>Darya,<br /> I assume you have a DX body since you said you also use the 50mm lens for "portrait." I really think you should consider replacing the 24-70/2.8 with a DX only lens, like the Sigma or Tamron 17-50/2.8. You will get FF eq of 28mm at the wide end and they cost about $500 and weigh about <500g. Their IQs are excellent.</p>

<p>There are many reasons why a 17-50/2.8-ish zoom is popular with event photographers. The range, obviously. But to me personally a constant aperture is very important when I use flash. I usually set the flash to TLL but all settings in the camera will be manual. That is I will set the aperture to get just the right amount of DOF, shutter speed (usually as high as it can go depending on the flash sync speed of the camera), and ISO. I will then adjust the flash output to give me just the right exposure. This prevents the camera from using SIO, aperture, or shutter speed to adjust the exposure in a way that surprises me. If you have a variable aperture lens, then you could cut down the light as you zoom out. I wish Nikon or someone can make a nice and compact 17-55/4 DX-only lens. Because when you use the flash, you almost never shoot at f2.8. I typically shoot at f4 to give me enough DOF to cover the subject. With available light indoor at night, f2.8 is often not wide enough for the current DX body because any thing shot with ISO>2,000 gets very noisy.</p> <p>I had the Nikon 17-55 but sold it to get the Sigma, which is cheaper, much lighter, pretty sharp, and has OS. I can't say that in the center my Sigma is better than the Nikon, but it is very sharp indeed. However the corners are softer. The Nikon has slightly better bokeh but the Sigma is fine. If you want to shoot video in the event, the OS comes in very handy. A constant f2.8 zoom will give you more than enough light for most situations when videos are needed. </p> <p>Since the standard zooms will cover a good range. You should complement it by primes to fill the gaps not cover by the zoom. Because these standard zooms go out to 50mm, a 50 mm lens is not all that useful. However a 50/1.4 lens is not too expensive and this will bring you much "more light" than f2.8. 50mm is a bit too long however on a DX body, unless you have plenty of working distance (=large space/room). You should get a 85/1.8 G for half body/head shoulder shots. (Most pro will probably also mount a second body with a 70-200/2.8 zoom to cover this range and to take candid shots of people who are not aware of you pointing the camera at them because you are far away) A 35/1.8 lens can come in handy when you need to shoot with available light indoors. However on a DX body I find the 35mm still a little too long. The new Nikon 20/1.8 should be better and will give you 30mm FF equivalent on a DX body. </p>

<p>I have seen people complaining about the Novoflex (German) adapters in terms of the fit being too tight or they do not allow for infinity focusing. Furthermore, people should spend the money according to the need. For one thing, if you buy a used lens for $50, and will only use it occasionally, spending close to $300 for an adapter seems unjustified. These $20-30 adapters are very well made for the piece they ask for. I would be happy to pay more if the adapter allows for precise control of aperture so if you want f2.8, you get f2.8. </p>

<p>There are many many cheap adapters that work with Nikon's G lens. Nikon's G lens still have a mechanical aperture and it does not take much to engage it by even the cheapest adapter. Many are probably made in a small metal shop somewhere in China, but so what? If it does not fit, return and get another. My G lens adapter for the m4/3 camera is about $35, bought from e Bay. </p> <p>One thing to keep in mind is that some cheap adapters may coat the inside with some black powder-ish substance to reduce reflection. To find out, you can wipe the inside of the tube with a white paper. Some worry that this can get to the back of the lens or come in contact with the sensor. You can wipe it until the loose stuff is all gone or take it to a shop to see if they can spray it with something to seal it. </p>

<p>Impressive for a 20mm f1.8 lens. It is on my shopping list now.</p>

<p>How is the bokeh?</p>