scottelly

February 9, 2015

I'd say that if Canon really wanted to load those cameras up with features, they'd make them do everything the 70 D does and more. Frankly I'm not sure why they don't. The Nikon D750 seems like a VERY popular camera, and that thing ain't cheap. I have no doubt that if Canon made their answer to the D750 and the D810 in one big, loaded camera, they could probably charge $5,000 for it, and it would be considered the ultimate camera for someone who doesn't care about shooting fast. Sony did something like this in the mid-range market (these Canons are high-end in their range) with the A77, which WAS loaded. It had GPS. It had a fold-out screen. Like most high-end Sony cameras at that time it had in-body image stabilization. It had super high resolution for its day. It had weather seals, like Sony's high-end cameras. It could even shoot at 12 fps (faster than any Sony before it). The truly amazing thing was that camera cost less than $2,000. And I think it sold quite well. If Canon really wanted to sell these 5Ds and 5Dsr cameras, they would have included all the extras. It's not as if they couldn't do it. Nikon can do it in their little D5300, so it's really not an issue of having enough space. I think they are penny wise and pound foolish. It's dumb, bean-counter thinking. It's not as if people aren't going to buy extras for these cameras! There's the powerful flash units, the lenses, the battery grip, spare batteries, and a whole lot more. It's just dumb that they crippled these cameras, and it's going to cost them sales of camera, which will cost them customers. Some of the Nikon shooters who might have switched if the cameras were truly loaded will wait and see what Nikon makes instead.

February 8, 2015

I'm sure they'll put the new 24 MP sensor in the 80d, and then drop the price of the 70d to $999, sell this new T6s for 849 or even 799, and sell the new 80d for $1,299. Right now the 70d body is $1,099. They only have to drop it $100 to do what I'm talking about, and with the introduction of a new body like the T6s, I'd say something like this is coming. The 70d is not old, but it's been on the market long enough that it could be refreshed. I just wonder what they're going to do after the 90d has been on the market for a year. Maybe they'll stop making DSLR bodies by then and go completely mirrorless by that time.

October 18, 2014

Hey Richard, just in case you didn't find a place where there are samples from the Wolverine F2D 20 MP scanner, here is a gallery of photos that were scanned with the 14 MP version of that scanner:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/sets/72157631774509984/

I was actually pretty surprised how good they look. For example, the spokes on the bicycle are quite visible in this shot, where the bike is pretty small in the bottom right corner of the photo here:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8183/8089787059_fc348e9756_o.jpg

Here's another example I think is good:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8043/8089820156_eb63902436_o.jpg

I don't know if those were sharpened, but they look like they could use a little sharpening. I also suspect the 20 MP version of the scanner will do a slightly better job. I suspect that until we get much higher resolution sensors, these will be about as good as you can get from a really cheap, really fast, home scanner. The alternative solution would be to get yourself a high resolution flatbed scanner, which will take about half an hour or more to scan a roll of film, rather than about five or ten minutes (and if you're fast, I have no doubt you could scan a 24 exposure roll with the Wolverine scanner in about two or three minutes). Here's a flatbed you should look at:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/985630-REG/epson_b11b210201_perfection_v550_photo_scanner.html

I'm considering getting this HP, because I can scan large format film with it (I have a Toyo 4x5):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/496397-REG/HP_Hewlett_Packard_L1957A_Scanjet_G4050_Photo_Flatbed.html

I've read that the HP is very slow, but I have no doubt that is only at the highest resolution settings, and I will do preview scans at 1,200 ppi (pixels per inch - similar to dpi, but they are full color vs. what a typical, non-Foveon digital camera outputs or shoots at, which ends up being interpolated to full color ppi). The 1200 ppi scans should go in very fast, and then I'll scan to 4800 ppi 48 bit TIFF for best quality results. I'll probably sharpen a little at that point and then downsize to 10,000 pixels across (the originals will be about twice that resolution I suspect - 4,800 x 5). From a 4,800 ppi optical scan of a 35mm negative or slide, you would get scans a little more than 24 MP. With the Epson at highest optical resolution of 6,400 ppi, you will get scans from 35mm slides that are a little over 50 MP (about 8850 x 5,900). As with just about any scan, you will get better final images if you sharpen them some (maybe a lot), but sharpening can cause the grain to become more visible, so it takes some experimenting to get best results.

Again, the flatbed scanners, at their top optical resolution settings, will take a long time to scan the film - probably a minute or more per frame of 35mm (some people report 2 to 3 minutes per 35mm negative, which would mean that a 24 exposure roll would take over an hour to scan). Certainly the scan times with flatbed scanners depend on the resolution you choose, other settings, like sharpening, dust removal, etc., and the speed of your computer. Apparently the HP G4050 is a pretty slow scanner - probably because it scans the film twice (once with each color of light, which is why it is called a six-color, 96 bit scanner). This is why I suggested you look at the less-expensive Epson first. Epson has a great reputation for color. I have found their printers to produce the best, most pleasing color in the past. (I once compared an Epson printer against an HP and a Canon of comparable price at a computer store, using glossy paper and a photo I had on a memory card.)

This is an interesting old article about scanning film:

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners/index.html

Something you might consider experimenting with, if you get a flatbed scanner, is wet mounting (dripping some liquid, like Kami wet mount solution) on the glass and laying your strip/sheet of film on that. The process of wet mounting reduces optical issues caused by having two separated surfaces (the top surface of the glass and the bottom surface of the film). You need to place your film the right way up/down, so the emulsion is on top or bottom, from what I've read. I'm not sure which will work better. Certainly wet mounting puts the film as close to the glass as possible, which is what flatbed scanners are made for (sheets of paper with print or photos printed). The typical, cheap flatbed scanner is pre-set at the factory to be focused on the top surface of the glass, or maybe a few microns above that, so a printed photo will be perfectly in focus. Using a film holder that places your negative more than a few microns above the surface of the glass will actually make the film go out of focus a little, I believe . . . but I may be wrong about this. I guess it depends on the scanner. Certainly wet mounting improves the image quality in some of the comparisons I have seen. I have yet to try this myself, but when I get a flatbed scanner, I will be experimenting with placing film in the film holder, on the glass, and wet mounting.

Good luck!

:)

October 7, 2014

For about a hundred bucks in the U.S. you can get a Wolverine Super F2D scanner that is super fast and easy to use, and that will allow him to scan 35mm slides and negatives in a reasonable amount of time and at 20 MP, for viewing, posting, and printing small. No, it won't let him scan at super high quality for making 16x20 inch or 20x30 inch prints or even for making fine art prints at 8x10 size, but it will let him see a reasonable amount of detail and print at 8x10 for cheap prints, and it may even give reasonable quality up to 13x19 (probably not for show quality printing though). The word "professional" has many meanings. He is probably using medium format cameras if he is a professional who still shoots film (though he might just like the look of film - I do, and I've been shooting with an old Nikon F3 lately). If this is the case, the Wolverine scanner will not do, because it will not scan medium format film. You should get him a flatbed scanner, like the new Epson V850 scanner if he is shooting film larger than 35mm (also called 135 film). They are just coming out on the market now, to replace the V750 scanner. There is a cheaper one called the V800, but if you can afford it, the V850 will be appreciated.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1083201-REG/epson_b11b224201_perfection_v850_pro_scanner.html

Some people say flatbed scanners are no good for scanning 35mm film, and for some uses, that is true, but the new Epson V850 (or V800 or even the older Epson V750 or V700) would surely be good enough for scanning film to make prints up to 16x20. That is an opinion thing though. Certainly to print really big prints, or for entries to competitions, where large prints are required, I would suggest sending 35mm film out to a professional scanning service, where they scan using a Heidelberg Tango drum scanner at 8,000 ppi or something like that. That is very expensive though (both the service, and of course that huge monster scanner).

Here's the Wolverine (a great little gift that might be a complete waste of money, but fun to use):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1018538-REG/wolverine_f2d20super_super_f2d_4_in_1_film.html

Has he ever use a large format camera? You could get him one, and he might find it a wonderful gift.

If he likes to shoot in the studio, you might get him this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/221234-REG/Toyo_View_180_109_45CX_4x5_View_Camera.html

If he likes to shoot still subjects outdoors (like flowers or landscapes), you might get him this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/257305-REG/Toyo_View_180_106_4x5_45CF_Field_Camera.html

The cheaper camera can be taken outdoors, but it is very bulky and not convenient for walking around with. If he shoots in the back yard a lot though, it would work just fine.

He will need to buy himself a lens, some accessories, and some film for those cameras.

Here's a good place in the U.S. to find used lenses for around $200 to $500:

https://www.keh.com/search/list?n=151

Presumably he has talked about getting a scanner, but just in case he has not, you might think about these other options, because large format is a wonderful world, and no reasonably priced digital camera will ever reach the level of quality achievable with 4x5 film . . . in our lifetime anyway. I've been waiting 10 years for it to happen, and even today the new $25,000 medium format 60 megapixel digital cameras are not there yet, and it looks like it will be many years before they match the quality from 4x5 with such expensive cameras, if ever.

Just so you know, large format film is much more expensive than the film he is probably using now:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/759411-USA/Kodak_1710516_4_x_5_Portra.html

October 7, 2014

I am restarting this thread, because I am looking for a flatbed scanner to replace the HP 4890 that I had years ago. I figure the G4050 would be a little better, and it's a good price. The results I got with the 4890 were plenty good . . . but the color could have been better. I figure that was because I didn't scan at 48 bit (too intensive for the computer I had at that time). Now that I have a dual-core computer with a really fast hard drive and 4 GB of RAM (instead of 1 GB, like I used to have), I figure I can start scanning film again. I'm going to do lots of testing with 35mm at first, but I will be scanning 4x5 too. I plan to experiment with wet mounting, because that appears to give far better scanning results. It will allow me to vary the focus too, using various thicknesses of mylar or other plastic wet-mount sheets. (I plan to try mounting on the glass directly using a drop or two of distilled water too.)

Anyone with experience with an HP G4050, who can give some advice for best practices and tell of some experiences with results, now that there has been a few years for software upgrades and such, please let me know what you think!

:)

Thank you, in advance, for your help.

Scott

..

May 9, 2014

Well, if it is broken and you would rather have a like-new 45 CX, I'm selling mine. It's in excellent condition. Here's my add for the lens.

http://miami.craigslist.org/brw/pho/4462578624.html

Here's my e-mail address, if you're interested: scottelly@yahoo.com

..

May 5, 2014

Actually Sam, if you can afford the new 18-200mm VR II it is incredibly sharp. It is probably the lens to get. If you get the 18-140mm VR in a kit though, you can get it for about $300, so you can't beat the value.

Check out the 18-200mm VR II here:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1281/cat/13

Too bad they haven't tested the 18-140 yet, but the 18-105mm VR has very similar performance, so you can compare that one. Here:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1221/cat/13

DxOMark has some information that might help:

April 21, 2014

I can't believe some of the comments I have read in here. Stuff like, "If you add a tripod you have now lost the advantage of the Nikon 1 sytem." WTF? So if you take a tripod your system is now as heavy as a D4s with 800mm f5.6 lens with the tripod. Am I reading that right? (Mod note: Personal insult deleted.)

On top of that . . . do you think that low weight is the only thing a Nikon 1 system has as an advantage? What about the 60 fps shooting speed? What about the 20 fps auto-focus tracking shooting speed? What about the ability to put a $1,000 lens on your camera and get performance almost as good as the D4s with a $20,000 lens? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918849-REG/nikon_2205_af_s_nikkor_800mm_f_5_6e.html

One more thing I have to say about you whiners that say the V3 is priced too high . . .

Currently the V3 is $1,196.95. That includes a $296.95 lens and a $236.95 adapter. Take those away and you have a new camera body that is available for $663.05 before it has even launched. No doubt the price will come down in a few months, once the channel is full. $663.05 is actually $83.90 LESS THAN A V2 body sells for right now!

Maybe you don't want the lens or the adapter or both. Sell them for $40 less than they cost new, and you'll have the new V3 for the same price as a new V2. It's a no-brainer.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1038908-REG/nikon_27695_1_v3_mirrorless_digital.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/897576-REG/Nikon_27603_Nikon_1_V2_Mirrorless.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1038909-REG/nikon_3367_1_nikkor_vr_10_30mm.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon+ft1&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ta

March 22, 2014

Soon there will be 20 MP sensors in m4/3 cameras. That's only 25% more pixels, so the step up will hardy make any difference in noise levels. Sigma could make a 25 MP equiv. Foveon sensor m4/3 camera right now. They already make some lenses. They could add an 8-16 based on their current design and a 17-70mm f2.8-4 OS based on their current 17-70mm f2.8-4 lens. Then they could make a 70-300mm f3.5-5.6 based on their current design. All these lenses would be stellar performers, and if they are made in the current C quality they would be really nice additions to their m4/3 line. They can use their new Quattro APS-C sensor (just not use the whole thing for making pictures - though they could use the full width with a special 1:3 panoramic photo mode). I'd LOVE to see a m4/3 Sigma camera with Foveon sensor! THAT is something I would definitely buy. Then it would be time to save up for the Noktons! I'd also like to see Sigma make a 9-100mm f3.5-5.6 OS C lens based on their new 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 OS C. Think they could make it for $399, like the current lens costs? Wouldn't THAT be something? What I'd like even better though would be a sharp 12-100mm f2.8-4 OS C in m4/3 format for $499.

Oh, wishes wishes.

March 17, 2014

This makes me want a D5300 with a 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 G and 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 VR. 18" at 300mm?!?! Nice! I'm actually surprised that's only a .32x magnification.

March 17, 2014

If you don't shoot in dark situations, and you don't need super fast shutter speeds with small apertures, and you never print larger than 20x30, then m4/3 is GREAT. The lenses really don't seem significantly cheaper than what you can get for APS-C and even full-frame cameras though. In my opinion the fact that a camera and two or three lenses weigh an extra 500, 600, or even 900 grams (200 to 300 grams extra for the bigger camera and 100 to 200 grams extra each for the lenses) doesn't really make much difference. 2 pounds of weight in 20 is hardly worth the savings, when you see the difference in the photos. I hear people say stuff like, "My gear is SO much lighter!" Not true. There really isn't much savings in weight.

Canon 6 D with Canon 24-105mm f4 L IS lens = 1,437 grams

Extra lens = 630 grams

Panasonic Lumix GH4 with 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 OIS lens = 755 grams

Extra lens = 210 grams

Bag with space for a camera and a few lenses = 700 to 1,000 grams

Extra battery = approx. 50 grams

various other items = approx. 500 grams

By the time you're done, you end up with a savings of about 10%. If you're getting crazy and trying to be as light as possible, then you're going to get an all-in one lens, like the new Sigma 18-200mm and just travel light, with a small, high-resolution APS-C camera, like a Canon T5i, Sony A65, or Nikon D5300. That whole kit weighs in at less than 1 pound heavier than a small, 16 megapixel m4/3 camera, like the Panasonic G6 with a decent zoom, like the Panasonic 14-140. Yes, you can get a Panasonic GX7, which weighs in at only 402 grams, but a Sony A65 weighs in at only 622 grams, and a Nikon D5300 is only 480 grams (hardly heavier than the diminutive GX7).

After saying all this though . . . I do understand someone who thinks of the m4/3 system as lighter than their old Canon 1Ds Mk II with heavy L series lenses, like the 24-700mm f2.8 L and 70-200mm f2.8 L IS. There really is no comparison, and the difference in image quality between that 16 megapixel set-up and a 16 megapixel m4/3 set-up with decent, but lighter lenses is really not that much . . . and totally not necessary unless you're printing at really large sizes, like 24x36 and larger or shooting in very dark situations at ISO 1600 or above. Most people hardly ever do that. Wedding photographers and sports photographers do it on a regular basis though. I shoot the majority of my photos at ISO 100 and ISO 200, no matter what camera and lens I am using, and I suspect most of you do too. In this case there really is no need for bigger, more professional equipment most of the time, so why not save the weight?

Recently I have discovered that since I really don't need more, I have been shooting with an old Sigma SD14 with a couple of cheap Sigma lenses (18-50mm f3.5-5.6 and 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 Macro II). This kit works just fine for me, and I find I really don't need anything more . . . but I would like to have a wider lens and a longer lens, even though I know I will rarely use them. I might just get the new Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 OS C, but I worry that would be compromising my image quality a little TOO much.

There really is something to be said about not having a bag. Just a camera with a lens attached is really nice. I take walks to the beach and walk about a mile or so along the beach, and I come across all sorts of interesting stuff along the way. Carrying a bag would be a hassle. Of course, if I were on a trip I would HAVE to have a bag. But if I were on a trip I would probably take a computer with me for various reasons too, so the weight of my camera and lenses, while it is a concern, is not that much of a big deal in situations when I am carrying a bag. (I carry a backpack with a MacBook Air, power adapter, battery charger for my camera batteries, external hard drive with cable, multiple spare batteries, change of clothes, water, snacks, flashlight, tail light for my bike, multi-tool with patches for fixing flats, and all sorts of other stuff, so my camera and lenses are only part of the weight equation for me.)

Recently I was looking at a used Olympus Pen (12 megapixels). I know that the 10 megapixel jpeg photos from my Sony R1 looked just fine printed at 20x30 (good quality prints), so I figure that camera might make a great ultra-light camera. The sensor is about the same size, and it's newer, so it probably produces better images than the 1.7x sensor in my Sony R1 did. Reading some of the comments here makes me want to give it a try even more.

Maybe some day I'll be a m4/3 convert too.

:)

March 17, 2014

Well . . . it's about time. XP is like 10 years old, right? How obsolete is THAT in the computer world?!?

Since XP we had Windows Vista, Windows 7, and now Windows 8, right?

March 17, 2014

You can not crop to less than about 1/4 of the photo. If you crop to much less than that you will have a photo that really is only good for printing very small or displaying on-line. If that's all you care about, remember that if you crop to 1/4 of a 1/4 of the image you are going to get a photo about 1,000 pixels across. That's not bad, but I've seen people try to crop to much smaller sizes than that. Sometimes people want to crop to a person's face (or a pet's face) from a photo that shows that person or animal in action with a few others, so really if they cropped to the whole person or animal they would be cropping to a size smaller than 1/4 of the image. Then cropping to just the face is cropping to a much smaller than 1/4 of that crop, so instead of cropping to 1/16 of the image (about 1 megapixel), they are cropping to 1/30 or even 1/50 of the whole image. That's much less than half a megapixel. The resulting image shows blur, because there was movement in the scene, which they didn't realize was happening, and they are trying to display an image at more than 100% size. It's crazy what people think they can do with a photo from a high resolution camera. It's like they think it's magic or something.

March 17, 2014

<div>

00cSP9-546323784.jpg.f44a3525c2f696a8459a625d04fe4122.jpg

</div>

February 25, 2014

Holy moly! "You need to know about your clients but I'm not in this business to make my clients my friends for life."

Please don't take advice from that guy!

Yes, what your experience showed you was how pathetic most photographers are at selling their services. Things in business are generally headed this way, and that is one reason why better sales people will continue to do well. Impersonal leaves people feeling cold. A good business person will not provide that sort of service. A good, service-oriented professional will make the entire process much more warm and comfortable for their clients.

February 25, 2014

You will probably just use your 24-70mm f2.8 and your 70-200mm VR most of the time. I would take the wide lens and the Sigma 150mm macro OS too. Why not take a couple of wide primes too? They don't weigh much. (AF 50mm f1.4 D and 35mm maybe . . . for night shooting.)

Here is a nice travel tripod: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/926387-REG/benro_a0350q0k_0_series_travel_tripod_kit.html

Here's a video review of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0deoP2fMZ8

If you have the room, check out this tripod. They are SO versatile:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/728796-REG/Benbo_BEN106C_Benbo_Trekker_Mk3_Compact.html

Here's a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxNHauCqlhM

February 25, 2014

Corbin it is like anything. You can offer your photography services to everyone. Specializing is good and bad. There are positives and negatives to everything. What kind of photographer do you want to be? Do you want to be an assignment photographer? Shooting weddings can be lucrative. Are you living in a Hispanic or Jewish area? Quinces and barmitzvahs can be lucrative too. Maybe you just want to shoot portraits. Portrait photographers who specialize in photography for business publications can make a good living too. There are as many ways to make a living in photography as there are types of photography. It can be difficult to make a living as a photographer though. I have had a very hard time myself. I do not try hard enough. I have a friend who shoots with a drone, and he is getting all sorts of commercial work shooting shopping centers and hotels and even private homes. He will be shooting an event with his drone too, getting paid thousands of dollars to do it. There REALLY are all sorts of ways to make money as a photographer Corbin.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Photographers-Guide-Making-Money/dp/1584282576/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&qid=1393377168&sr=8-19&keywords=make+money+as+a+photographer

February 25, 2014

All sorts of things can happen. It could be as simple as a bad cable or a bad port. I would not use Seagate, if I were you, but that's your prerogative. Stay away from Lacie too. Some swear by both of those though.

Asking how a hard drive can become corrupted is like asking how a person can crash their car. It happens . . . myriad ways. There can be a software issue. A drive can be dropped. Humidity can happen. A faulty drive could be the culprit. Like I said . . . a bad cable can be the problem. It could be a hardware issue in the computer. There are SO many things that could happen.

You are smart to have back-ups. That is what they are for.

February 25, 2014

BTW, the painting certainly looks to be a copy of this photo: http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?83210

Even the light stand by the wall two arches away from the staircase is in the painting. That would not be there in any other photo, if I am not mistaken. The way the corner hits the stairs is unlikely to be the same in any other photo either. If there is another photo identical to this anywhere in the World I would be very surprised. I know very little about this situation, but my guess is you have a very good case. There is even a photo of the lobby that shows the painting on their Web site! Wow.

Make sure you go to the hotel and shoot photos and video of the painting and the whole scene of the lobby, before they claim that they never did it. Take screen shots of the Web site too. Make sure you get a couple of witnesses that the painting is the same as your photo too. If I were you, I would be very careful. There are all sorts of dirty dealings that go on.

Again . . . I am no lawyer, so this is not legal advice. If I were you, I would DEFINITELY get a good lawyer, who specializes in copyright infringement cases.

February 25, 2014

The damages are that someone infringed on the photographer's rights under copyright law! The civil and criminal penalties can be very different. The photographer can choose to press charges or not. The state or federal government may go ahead and press charges anyway. There are real fines and other penalties for copyright infringement. If the photographer assists the government in enforcing copyright law s/he may be entitled to a portion of the fine(s).

I am no lawyer, so this is not legal advice, but that is what I got from the research I did.

February 25, 2014

I am no lawyer, so this is not legal advice, but I believe I read somewhere that a person can get a "finder's fee" for helping to enforce copyright law, which is equal to half the amount of the fine, which can be up to $60,000 per instance. If this is true, you may be due a $30,000 share of a criminal judgment of $60,000 for that copyright infringement case. You may also be due a "reasonable fee" for your work . . . whatever that may be.

I believe there is a difference between the civil and criminal penalties, and I believe they are independent. No doubt whoever you threaten to sue is likely to settle out of court. How much do you want?

Do you remember Alan Shore, from Boston Legal? I'd get a lawyer like him.

;)

Good luck.

February 25, 2014

Both the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G ED VR and the 24-120mm f4G ED VR get a score of 22 on a D800.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-24-85mm-F35-45G-ED-VR

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-120mm-f-4G-ED-VR

That should tell you everything you need to know.

;)

February 25, 2014

I like the new 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR, and it is rated highly. Add a 70-200mm f2.8 VR or a 70-300mm f3.5-5.6 VR, and you'll have a great two-lens kit, which you can always enhance with the amazing 14-24mm f2.8 G or the wonderful 85mm f1.4 G or maybe a nice macro.

Good luck with your decision!

:)

February 25, 2014

. . . and will they go with two UDMA7 CF card slots, like Canon did with the 1Dx? I hope to see a 24 MP Nikon D400 with that (2 UDMA7 CF card slots) . . . and fast shooting (10 fps) with a humongous buffer. Wi-fi and a built-in GPS would be nice too, as would 4K video. While we're wishing . . . how about a 3.2" articulating screen Nikon?

February 25, 2014

I have had card failures. All sorts. Sometimes it was because a new camera fried cards (my Nikon D5000 fried two of my old Micro-SD cards, but spared other, identical cards - I guess they were not quite identical). Sometimes it was a memory card slot in a computer that "corrupted" the card. Cards have "gone bad" over time on me. I have used HP, Trascend, Patriot, SanDisk, A-Data, PNY, Kingston, Samsung, Ri-Data, and others. Most of the cards I have used are Micro-SD cards of various speeds (Class 2, Class 4, Class 6, and Class 10). I even have a 16 GB high speed Sony SDHC (UHS1 speed - 94 MB/s) card. The Sony card does not work in some of my devices, and it gave me no improvement in buffer clearing of my Sony A55. My memory card slot in my MacBook Air is not one of the newer ones, so data actually reads more slowly from the new fast card than older cards. Even the Class 4, class 6, and class 10 cards do not work in some of my devices. Sometimes using a Micro-SD card in a different adapter will make it work. Only the Class 2 cards work in some of my devices, but only with some of the adapters I have. I have had write protect tabs break off of SD cards. This is one of the main reasons I like to use Micro-SD cards. The cards I have used were/are in various sizes, from 2 GB to 8 GB. I have had 1 GB SD and Micro-SD cards (no speed rating at that time) cards in the past too, but they're long gone now. I rarely use anything less than an 8 GB card now.

A dog chewed up one of my 4 GB SD cards once. I think that was a Patriot 133x 4 GB card, before the Class speed rating system took hold.

The point is that I have vast experience with SD and Micro-SD cards in cameras and other devices (often using a CF to SD adapter with a Micro-SD card in a Micro-SD to SD adapter in that adapter), and I can tell you there are all sorts of factors involved. You can not expect to get information that will work for you in all device, adapter, and card combinations and situations. There are too many variables. Understand that better cards are not always the best for your particular situation. Throwing money at the problem does not necessarily work. Sometimes a more generic card will work just as well or better than an expensive Lexar Pro card. Card speeds vary. Card software format compatibility varies. Device interfaces vary. Some cards work in some devices better than others. That's just the way of things. If you are having trouble with a card it is probably time to get a new one. Do not spend a lot on cards unless you absolutely have too. Right now you can get a good 8 GB card for about $10 on-line. You can get a good 16 GB card for under $20.

I suggest you stay away from Transcend cards. I have had bad luck with them. Some people swear by them though. Some are rated very highly.

Good luck.

Here are a couple I would consider buying, if I were buying SD cards right now:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1016057-REG/pny_technologies_p_sdh16g10h_ge_16gb_sdhc_card_class.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/917689-REG/sony_sf16ux_tqn_16gb_sdhc_uhs_1_memory_card.html

Just so you know, I prefer Micro-SD cards, because I believe they use less power and I can store more of them in the same space. Here are the cards I would consider buying if I were going to buy some of them right now:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/917667-REG/sony_sr16uya_tqmn_16gb_micro_sdhc_memory.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855703-REG/delkin_devices_ddmicrosdpro2_16gb_16gb_microsd_pro_sdhc.html

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by scottelly