ilkka_nissila

<p>Yongnuo triggers are recommended by some: http://www.hkyongnuo.com/e-detail.php?ID=339</p> <p>I haven't used them personally.</p>

<p>Even with the Kirk collar for the AF-S 80-400, I wasn't able to get consistent sharpness at slow speeds (8s to 1/60s) at 400mm using a tripod. The Kirk collar is an improvement over the Nikon collar but doesn't completely solve the issue of stability. This eventually led me to sell the lens. At fast speeds (1/320s and faster) I was happy with the lens's performance. I would recommend its use when you need a long lens that can be hand-held indefinitely and are shooting in bright enough light so you can maintain a fast shutter speed. If the situation doesn't allow a fast shutter speed then results are likely to be poor. </p> <p>Simon Stafford tested the 80-400 using the RRS Long lens support package and seemed to be happy with it in the review published in the Nikon Owner (UK) magazine. This construction involves a bracket that is almost as long as the lens itself and should provide better support. I didn't purchase it as I felt it would be cumbersome to pack as attached to the lens it wouldn't fit in Nikon's bag for the 80-400. If I were determined to use this as my long lens for landscape, I would probably get that package. It can be used on other long lenses as well.</p>

<p>I think to do high speed sync faster than 1/320s remotely you need to use a speedlight (e.g. SB-700, 800, 900, or 910) or SU-800 as the commander, instead of the built in flash. Notice that the maximum flash energy in high speed sync mode is reduced by as many stops as you gain the speed over 1/250s (roughly speaking).</p>

<p>I always support the 70-200/2.8 (with body attached) from the lens, not the body. Mirror and lens mount alignment with high resolution cameras is enough of an issue even without abuse.</p>

<p>It is <em>a</em> fluorine, not <em>the</em> fluorine. A simple google search will find numerous applications of this term "fluorine coating" by various companies (Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Nanoprotex, G'zog, looks like there are lots) so it's established terminology.</p>

<p>It's not called a fluoride because it's not a fluoride (the fluorine coating has covalent bonds between carbon and fluorine, whereas the term "fluoride" suggests a salt or in other words an ionic bond).</p>

Canon uses the same terminology for their easy-to-clean coating so I think rather than come up with a new name it is good that they use the same. The new fluorine coating is use for external surfaces whereas nano crystal coat is used in some inner lens surfaces only. I think the 14-24 and 24-70 should get the new coating soon as with the former it is easy to get wateron the front element and the latter is often used for events where liquids and "stuff" can be in the air, and a resistant surface would be very helpful to have.

<p>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. Apparently it had a small market and Nikon supplied to this market. The price of the F3HP towards the end of its production was quite high (close to 2000€), so in practice few people actually bought it at those prices, but Nikon kept it available new. I was an F3HP user for quite many years, preferring its viewfinder and handling to those of AF cameras at the time. However, I bought mine second hand.</p> <p>I think Nikon keeps the D300s in the lineup because they recognize there is a market for this type of camera but they're not updating it because they'd like it to gradually go away (soft persuasion). However, for the high fps action photographers, the progression from the D7100 to the D4s is just too big a jump in terms of cost.</p> <p>To fix the current situation, Nikon could improve the mid level cameras by upgrading the D7100 with a 12-24 NEF image buffer and replacing the Df and D610 with models that have Multi-CAM 3500 instead of 4800. I believe these cameras would find lots of satisfied new buyers. I would also like to see Nikon support their cameras with more focusing screen options as they once did, and standardization of accessories i.e. wifi, gps, remote control so that all the cameras accept the same accessories, instead of having to buy several accessories for the same function. I think a separate "D400" is not necessary if the D7100 gets a larger buffer; it is a very nice camera.</p> <p>I guess one practical problem for Nikon is that they have so many products that it's not possible to keep everything updated with the latest technology and optics all the time, so there are always users who find themselves neglected even if in reality there has been steady progression in the quality of results achievable. However, what Nikon <em>can</em> do, is avoid making artificial limitations in their products. Examples of such limitations include wobbly tripod collars (preventing or hindering the use of long lenses at slow to intermediate shutter speeds with no apparent benefit), relatively low quality live view image (compared to many mirrorless cameras or even Canon), disproportionally small buffers (D7100) and limited AF coverage (e.g. Df) in otherwise nice products.</p>