Gary Naka

Lithium is a known battery chemistry. However, some companies tweak the chemistry just a bit, to get more voltage or capacity. It is these that you have to worry about, as their charge logic may be different. Example: If they charge to a higher voltage, they will overcharge a standard battery. If you have one of these batteries, it is safer to stick with the battery manufacturer's charger. If you look at your camera's charger, it likely has more than 2 contacts for the battery, mine do. But most 3rd party chargers only have 2 contacts. My question is, what are the other contacts on the mfg charger for? Are they part of a charge monitoring circuit that the 2 contact chargers are not using? A battery engineer told me that the 3rd wire/contact in lithium chargers if for PTC / Positive Temperature Control. A sensor in the battery tells the charger to shut down, if it gets too hot (overcharging). PTC is a safety mechanism. No 3rd contact, no PTC. The other reason is warranty. The battery mfg can't point the finger at the charger mfg, if they also make/sell the charger, they can only point their finger at themselves.

If it is a lithium battery, it was probably overcharged. When a Li battery is overcharged, it generates gas. But unlike a NiCd there is no vent on a Li battery, so the cell swells, pushes on the case and the case swells. A battery that is hard to remove should NOT be used, because if it swells more, it could get STUCK in the camera. That would require going to the camera's repair center to remove the battery. $$$ A new battery is cheaper than the repair bill.

Oh tell me about forgetting to switch the WB. Been there, done that :( For the average person, or even me, it can be difficult to deal with a situation with different types of light and significantly different light levels. I find it much easier to fix the shooting environment, than having to try to fix it in the photo editor. My photo editing skills are way behind yours.

Yup There are too many F mount cameras and lenses out there, and no equivalent Z mount camera and lens for some/many of them. No camera company can kill one line without having the successor line fleshed out enough to take the conversion. That would just push the users to move to another brand. If I need camera Y function or lens X but it is not yet available in the Z mount, and no longer available in the F mount, then I'm stuck. I have to use a Canon or Sony system to use camera Y function or lens X, and once I do that, I've bought into that other system, and it will be harder for Nikon to get me back.

Canon has the APS-C M-50. And the M50 has more native lenses than the Nikon Z50 does. Nikon could have made a LOW cost Z-FX camera for the consumer market, and matching low cost consumer grade Z-FX lenses. But they had to compete with Canon's APS-C M50. And once they came out with the Z50, rather than a LOW cost Z-FX, they were stuck in the Z-DX market. As much as I don't care for the DX/FX split lines, it does make marketing sense. As long as the market can support the two lines. And as long as the manufactures can support making two lines, which Nikon is doing poorly at right now, with only TWO Z-DX lenses. IMHO DX is not "the source for confusion for the beginners with the crop factor." It is when the FF people throw around crop factor stuff that THEY confuse the beginners. When FF people throw around the "full frame equivalent" stuff, how is a person who has never shot FF supposed to understand that. Saying "135mm FF equivalent" to a DX user means nothing, cuz they have no idea what a 135mm lens on a FF camera sees. It would be like a DX user telling you "45mm DX equivalent," and you have to figure out what he is talking about. IMHO, "full frame equivalent" is a concept for the FF people to understand the crop cameras, not for a crop camera user. Do you have facts to back up your statement of "it's the FX is where money to be made. Not so much on the DX side." Or is that an opinion? Canon, Nikon and Sony won't be selling a lot of expensive FF cameras at Costco and other discount stores. Unless they come out with a LOW priced mirrorless kit, similar in selling price to the APS-C dSLRs. That is the price sensitive consumer market. None of them is going to give up the consumer DX/APS-C market and $$$$$$$$ revenue, and give it to the others.

If Nikon is going to drop the dSLRs, they HAVE to make Z DX cameras to replace the consumer D3xxx, D5xxx, and D7xxx. If not they would be giving that market to Canon and Sony.

I wonder if the D500 was an pushed upgrade from the D300. But Nikon would rather have wanted the D300 users to upgrade to FX instead. For a Z-DX version of the D500, I think many will be satisfied with the same 20MP, but IMPROVED AF, and a faster frame rate using the e-shutter. The more pixels you have the harder to get the frame rate up, because you would have more data to push for each frame. But that is something that technology can improve.

I'm part way there with the need for VR to deal with my wobbles. Since Nikon used Z, maybe Nikon will go backwards Y > X > W

I use Google Picasa. Easy and fast to use, and handles 90% of what I want. But Google dropped support for Picasa a long time ago, so you might have to search to find it. I only use it for the basic stuff: leveling the picture, adjusting the exposure, and cropping. I'm sure there are other easy to use programs out there.

Will Photo.net still be around in 20 years? The world has changed so much in the last 20 years, I don't know what 20 years from now will look like. Well I "hope" I am still around, but who knows.

That is the point. If the price SLOWLY and continually drops over the next 20 years, the low point may be 20+ years from now. Let me know what you buy, in 20 years.

Have you compared the prices of FX and DX lenses? The FX lenses are generally significantly more $$$ than the DX lens. Following are all list price off the Nikon web site, not sale prices. 24/1.8: F-FX is $750, and the Z-FX is $1,000 !!!! 35/1.8: F-DX is $200, vs F-FX at $530 and Z-FX at $850 50/1.8: F-FX at $220 is the bargain of the FX bunch, and the Z FX at $600. If Nikon can make and sell a F DX 35/1.8 for less than half the price of a F FX 35/1.8, why not a F DX 24/1.8 for a decent price reduction over the F-FX lens. A LARGE portion of the DX market is the price sensitive consumer market. Yes I know making FAST wide lenses is not cheap. But, I have a m4/3 Olympus 17/1.8 that is listed on Amazon at $380. So Nikon "should" be able to do a F-DX 24/1.8 lens for significantly less than $750. Canon lists an EF-M 22/2 for $250. The other issue is simply market demand. Can Nikon sell enough at the projected price to cover the investment? But then, maybe the DX 35/1.8 normal lens is Nikon's "token" prime for the DX users. And maybe Nikon plans to do same for Z-DX, or not even have a prime. Looking at Canon: dSLR: Interestingly Canon's APS-C EF-S lenses does not have a 35/1.8 normal lens, but they have a 50/1.8 for $126. They also have two compact primes: the wide 24/2.8 at $150 and the 40/2.8 at $200. Sacrificing a stop of lens speed for the compact size. mirrorless: EF-M series, they list the following primes: a wide 22/2 at $250 and normal 32/1.4 at $480.

The problem is you can wait and wait and wait, until you die. And during that time, you don't have use of the lens you are waiting for. So, if you want the lens, and the price is low enough, GET IT, and USE it.

Yes, there are dupes in the F DX lenses, which is why I just said more than a dozen, vs the 26 F DX lenses that are on Nikon's web site. Just TWO Z DX lenses, leaves a LOT of holes to fill. Sorry but I don't consider the Z DX 16-50 "right." It is nice to see the 18-55 pushed down to 16, but that does not make it "right." For ME, the long end stopping at 50, is too short. Even shorter than the current 18-55, where you are rather quickly forced to switch to a longer lens. If it went out to 80 (or longer), THEN for me it would be a good lens. I much rather prefer the 18-140 that I currently have on my D7200, as a GP lens. And the 18-140 is on the Z DX roadmap. If I were to get a Z DX camera, it will be with the 18-140 lens. Like the old 80/20 rule, the 18-140 covers more than 80% of my "normal" shooting needs. The Z DX 50-250 is close enough on the long end to displace the F DX 70-300, so we'll call that good. They need an ultra-wide like the 10-20 or 10-24. Nikon has it for F DX. Long term, they need a set of FAST zooms. A 16-50/2.8 (a DX equiv to the FX 24-75, Nikon has a F DX 17-55/2.8), I use a Tamron F DX 17-50/2.8. [*]A longer 16-80/2.8 (a DX equiv to the FX 24-120. Nikon has a F DX 16-80/2.8-4), This would be my "fast" alternate lens to the 18-140, to get with a Z DX camera. [*]A 40-150/2.8 (a DX equivalent to the FX 70-200/2.8, which Nikon has frustratingly NEVER made for the DX users). The closest "in production" lens is the Tamron F FX 35-150/2.8-4. Due to lack of options at the time, I got a Nikon F FX 70-200. If the Tamron lens was available when I bought the 70-200, I would have bought the Tamron instead. Primes: A 24/1.8 moderate wide (a DX equivalent to the FX 35) A 35/1.8 normal (Nikon has one for F DX) I got the 35, only because Nikon did/does not have a F DX 24/1.8. [*]A 60/1.8 short tele I use a F FX 50/1.8 on my D7200 [*]Nikon released a compact Z FX 28/2.8 that they are marketing with the DX Cf camera. Great for a compact lens. But f/2.8 is relatively slow for a prime. Get me down to at least f/2. A macro lens would be needed to flesh out the system. Nikon has it for F DX. The Z FX 50 macro would work.

As long as it keeps working. I kept my D70 for about 14 years, until it died on me. My other D70 still works, but it is rarely used. As long as there is enough $ to be made off the dSLR market it makes sense to support it. But it was hard enough with FX and DX dSLRs, multiply it by two with FX and DX mirrorless, and the development effort goes up. So at a certain point they have to fully transition to mirrorless, and stop development on dSLR gear. In between there will be a gradual transition, which I think is happening now, with less F gear in development, and more Z gear in development. But the Z system has to be complete enough to switch to, before they can pull the plug on the F systems. Example, there are currently only TWO DX Z lenses vs. over a dozen DX F lenses. So the DX Z lens landscape has to be fleshed out, before they can really pull the plug on the DX dSLRs. Same with the cameras. There really is only the Z50 DX camera, Nikon needs the Z equivalent of the D3xxx entry level camera, to sell in the big box/warehouse stores. Systems transitions are difficult.

I would be hoping that covid has not gone through the lens development team.

A golf cart has fairly large wheels, so even better for field use than the small wheel carts.

I tried both. Sigma drove me nuts. The Sigma zoom ring turns in the opposite direction than the Nikon zoom ring. :confused: If you shoot action and zoom with muscle memory, it get confusing and frustrating, when you keep turning the zoom ring the wrong way. I gave up in frustration after 15 minutes. But, if not fast action, then turning the zoom ring the wrong way only cost a little more time, not a lost shot. The Tamron zoom ring turns in the same direction as the Nikon zoom ring. :) So Sigma for Canon, and Tamron for Nikon.

I dunno, there were an awful LOT of Instamatics when I was growing up. A lot of people dropped the roll film and 35mm cameras for the drop-in ease of use of the 126 cartridge. However, the film is gone (at least I don't know anyone still making it), and probably most of the negatives are long lost. As for printing, I have enlargers waiting for me to build my darkroom. I find it more relaxing to print in a wet darkroom. But for getting things done, the computer beats the darkroom.

That is exactly what happened with 70mm film for the Hasselblad. The Hasselbad requires a certain type of 70mm sprocket film, that no one makes anymore, so the 70mm gear is not usable. And the last time I looked, the 70mm stuff was very cheap on eBay.

For conditions like that, my flash gets more complicated. Usually direct flash and putting the flash on a bracket, to get more distance from the lens, to avoid red-eye. An assistant with a fold open reflector would be nice. My Olympus has a "keep warm" option, but I do not recall seeing it on my Nikon D7200.

I never carried a grey card, until recently. The lights in my gym cannot be matched by the AWB on my Olympus. I had to use custom WB.

If you have not soldered, you need to get a soldering iron and PRACTICE. Soldering is not as easy as some make it out to be. And for electronics, you need to use ROSIN core solder, NOT acid core. For the batteries, you solder the tabs, NOT the cells. The heat will damage the cells. If the batteries for your Sunpak won't take a charge, replace them. Don't bother with trying to "wake it up." The batteries are damaged.

Recelling the battery pack is relatively easy, if you are handy with electronics and a soldering iron. You CAREFULLY open the battery pack, determine what type of cells are used and how many, then order the cells. Then the fun part; take the old cells out without damaging things, soldering the new cells into sets, shrink wrap the sets, solder the sets together then into the pack, put the pack back together. On my pack I think it was either 3 sets of 3 cells each, total 9 cells, or 3 sets of 4 each, total 12 cells. The original cells are NiCd, I replaced them with NiMH. BUT, when you do that, you also need to find and adapt a NiMH charger, as the Lumedyne NiCd charger won't properly charge NiMH cells. Warning. Do not get Tenergy NiMH cells. Tenergy overrates their NiMH cells. NONE of my 25+ Tenergy NiMH cells (AA and sub-C) tested anywhere near the rated capacity. So if you pay more for a Tenergy HIGH capacity battery, it is wasted money. Because you are not getting the capacity that you think you are getting, and paying extra for. I still use my Lumedyne, as a HV pack for my shoe flash. The shoe flash recyles FAST, and I don't worry about draining the batteries inside the shoe flash. Once you get used to a FAST recycle, it is like drugs, you can't live without it.

Mixed lighting can be a PITA to work with. Because as you or the subject moves around, you can get more of one light than the other, and the color changes. And the mix is neither one, nor the other, so you have to use custom WB. When you are shooting towards a strong light source, IT could fool the auto-WB. In the case of your pic, the window is probably not the primary illumination on you, but a backlight. So the WB of the window is not relevant. Some cameras can do auto-WB better than others. My Nikon D7200 figures out the lighting in my school gym much better than my Olympus. I have to use custom WB with the Olympus. But there are times and places where the Nikon auto-WB fails. My solution for family events is generally to get a flash and bounce it off the WHITE ceiling or the wall behind me. The flash cures a lot of lighting problems. In your case, make sure you get an iTTL flash, that will do TTL with your Nikons.