Gary Naka

If you use "Auto" exposure mode, the camera is in "closest subject AF mode." This is why I NEVER use Auto. The camera focused very well on the dinner table in front of my guests, not my guests on the other side of the table.

I think with Nikon dynamic AF, you will not see if the camera has selected one of the other focus points within the zone. I do not recall ever seeing the AF point move, while in D9. But I think I did remember seeing it jump around with 3D tracking. I only used Nikon 3D tracking once, to shoot tennis. But when I saw it sometimes selecting the lines on the tennis court, I gave up on it, as not usable for what I shoot. I shoot sports, so the color tracking logic will fail. Because everyone on a team is wearing the same color uniform.

One thing, Dynamic-area-AF is different than zone focus, as on a Canon T7i. On a Canon T7i, zone focus uses "closest subject" logic. That means the camera will focus on the closest subject/object in the focus zone/area. So for example, in a group of people, the Canon will focus on the CLOSEST person in the group. On the Nikon dynamic-AF, I can put the AF area on whomever I want to, even if that person is NOT the closest person in the group, and it will focus on that person. So it starts off like single point AF. Agree with @Matthew Currie, with any of these dynamic, tracking, area/zone focus, you do not have any control over what the camera decides to focus on. On my Olympus, I have watched the green AF square jumping around to different spots on my subject. So, if you want to put something in focus, you need to focus on THAT SPOT.

Supposedly, dynamic starts with the center AF point. Then will try to maintain focus on the subject as it moves out of the center AF point, limited by the size of the D-area you choose. D9 is a 3x3 matrix. I use this one. I suspect D21 is 3V x 7H, as that is the only math that works. Similarly for D39, the math only works for 3 x 13.

BACKPACKING In my mind, that means space and weight are premium items = small and light. Unless you are REALLY determined for max IQ (vs. good enough), or have planned for the extra space and weight, I would consider a light 2-lens kit. Something like the following: - A 28-300, or similar consumer super zoom, for light weight and carrying a single lens vs. two or three lenses. There will be a compromise in IQ, to get the zoom range in a single lens. - And your 50/1.4 for low light conditions. Maybe not even this, if you are primarily shooting in the sunlight, and not hiking in deep forest. Or for a heavier 2-lens kit. - A 24-120, or similar wide to short tele zoom. The Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 is similar to the 24-120, but with the focal range shifted up. So not as wide on the short end, and longer on the long end. But I don't consider this a light lens. - And a 70-300 or 100-400, for more distant subjects. The 70-300 being the smaller/lighter lens. For comparison: My personal DX travel kit are 2-lenses: DX 18-140 and 35/1.8 My personal m4/3 travel kit is made up of consumer grade (non-pro) lenses. A 12-60 (equivalent to a FX 24-120) and 17/1.8 (equiv to a FX 35). The 60mm max, was good enough for most of what I shot. These two lenses were specifically selected for minimum space and weight. As for 3rd party lenses. I've used Tamron 17-50/2.8 DX non-VR, and 70-200/2.8 FX on my D7200 with no problem. I've used Tamron 17-50/2.8 DX non-VR, 35-150/2.8-4 FX, and 70-210/4 FX on a Canon T7i also with no problem. I've only use one Sigma, the 17-50/2.8 DX. on a Canon T7i. It worked fine, but I did not like its operation. The zoom ring turned in the opposite direction than Nikon (real confusing when I shoot sports), and the zoom ring with a short 60 degree throw was STIFF to turn. Your D700 likely has a hardware or firmware issue with the later lenses. That is a problem with Nikon lenses. Some of the later lenses do not work, or only partially functions on older cameras. That may have been the case with the Sigma lenses you tried.

Well I did not know, so I Googled it, and it came up with 75.

The 810 to 850 upgrade. I would not do an 810 to 850 upgrade. I don't think there is enough improvement in most 1-generation upgrades. For personal use, not business, I normally plan for a 3+ generation upgrade. The exception is when there is a SIGNIFICANT functionality increase that YOU can use. THEN it makes sense, to do a 1-generation upgrade. However, there is the idea that you want your last system to be the best you can afford. The 810 to Z6/7 upgrade This would make sense, as that is a significant upgrade. BUT, that is also a system upgrade. While you can use F lenses on the Z (as long as it is not the mechanical AF lenses), if you are going to a Z, I would plan on gradually replacing the F lenses with Z lenses. But, at your age (75), I would really think if a system change is worth it. Can you use the new system long enough to learn it and make it worthwhile? Because, the age related one (weight reduction) is around the corner. I already hit that one, and I'm younger than you. EVF on the Z: An EVF is WONDERFUL. In difficult lighting conditions, where the camera cannot meter correctly, I can see what the exposure will be, and adjust in real time. Soooo much easier than on a dSLR, where I have to shoot, chimp and adjust, then repeat again until I get the exposure. On my Olympus, I can configure the EVF to show when the highlights will be blown. That makes it easier to adjust the exposure, or not, in those conditions. I do not know if you can do it on the Nikon Z. [*]If you don't shoot fast action/sports, the very slight EVF lag is a non-issue. [*]What is neat is, in dim lighting, the EVF will show a correctly exposed image. That image in the EVF will be brighter than the scene through an OVF or your bare eyes. re weight reduction. The Z cameras are lighter than the D810. But . . . I would not count on weight reduction with the lenses, a FX lens is a FX lens. And some of the Z lenses that I looked at are bigger and heavier than the F lenses. However, if you stick with the lighter f/4 zooms, non-pro zooms, and smaller primes, you can keep the weight down. Getting older and the weight reduction issue: I'm 66, with back and leg injuries. As a result I HAD to reduce the weight of my kit, or cut/stop my shooting. So I went light, with micro 4/3. My base kit Olympus EM1 + Panasonic 12-60 is about 45% lighter than my D7200 + 18-140, and about 60% lighter than a D810 + 24-120. Similarly, various configurations of my m4/3 kit are significantly lighter than a comparable Nikon dSLR kit. My back and legs really appreciate the weight reduction. [*]However, Olympus does not have a lens that for handling can compete with the Nikon 70-200/4. The Olympus pro lenses are not even close, the zoom rings are over dampened and stiffer to turn. That is not desired in a situation like sports, where I am CONSTANTLY working the zoom ring. So I still use the Nikon 70-200/4 and my D7200 for field sports. This is a situation where the lens chooses the camera.

There are many reasons for the pricing, most will be unknown outside of Nikon. One is, market share. This may be a move to try to get more market from or prevent losing market share to Canon and Sony. To me, the big one, is not losing market share to Canon, as both migrate from dSLR to mirrorless. There is also the old razor strategy. Give away the razor and people will have to come back to buy the blades. So you lower the price of the camera, to sell more expensive Z-FX lenses. If this had happened several years back, I would have made the move from DX to FX. It would have significantly lowered the cost of migrating to FX. At the time, I think the D750 was over $2,000. In a similar way, it could be an effort to get the DX dSLR owners to upgrade to FX mirrorless, by lowering the cost of migration.

EVF issues depends on the camera, the user, and the subject. Shooting on vacation, I had ZERO issues with the EVF on my Olympus. For fast action sports (like basketball and soccer), it retained image of the the last frame for a half second too long, That drove me nuts, but the next model of the camera solved that problem. But again, that was only for fast action sports, not for anything else. With most any EVF, there is "some" lag, however small, as it has to process and display the image. Some are slower than others. With an optical viewfinder, by definition, there is no lag, because there is no electronics. I have no idea about the nausea, cuz I never experienced it with a stabilized camera/lens. However, you have to look at what you gain. For me, the biggest gain with the EVF is the ability to view the exposure in REAL TIME. So you know before you press the shutter, if your exposure is correct or not. This really is of benefit in difficult lighting conditions, like backlighting or DARK backgrounds. Forget the reports of what other say about the EVF, go rent a mirrorless camera and see for yourself. Nothing beats first hand experience.

I thought the same about the forward positioned zoom ring. But when I used a Tamron 70-210/4, with a front zoom ring, I found that I liked it. The lens rested in my left hand, and the zoom ring fell nicely on my thumb and fingers. Holding the lens thumb forward. And I could work the zoom ring easily. Call me convinced. When I use my Nikon 70-200/4, to shoot field sports, I reverse the tripod collar, and rest the foot on my palm. Then my fingers can work the zoom ring. I hope to try the Tamron 70-200/2.8 in a week or so, and see how it's front positioned zoom ring feels.

Agree, I was hoping that Nikon would do a low end FX mirrorless, as the Nikkormat was to the Nikon F. And a cheaper non-pro lens line. That would tremendously simplify migration from one to the other. Unlike the pain of going from DX to FX. I think they were market pressured into the DX mirrorless. They could not "give" the DX/APS-C market to Canon. Yet, there is some logic to keeping the DX line. With the DX line, it is a more price sensitive market, vs. Canon, in the big box stores. With the FX line, they can raise the margins and make more $ per unit. If you can keep the two lines separate, it works. It becomes an issue at the top of the DX range if you want to migrate to FX. Canon solved that by giving the APS-C M50 a different mount than the FF R. To go from M50 to R, IS a system migration. DX to FX: For me with a D7200 and was considering a D750, the issue was lenses. I wanted to go FX. But the cost of a DX 16-80/2.8-4 would financially lock me into DX. So I just could not make a decision, and was stuck in indecision. I finally broke the stalemate by going the other way, to micro 4/3. This was driven purely by size and weight, as the weight of my DX/FX kit was getting too heavy for the old man to easily carry. With only TWO DX Z lenses, Nikon is seriously lagging behind the Canon M50 in native lenses. But as you said, DX has always lagged behind FX, and has always had holes in the DX F lens line-up. I had to go to FX and 3rd party lenses to fill the gaps in the DX F lens line. I am surprised that Nikon would discontinue the D3500 and D5600, without having a mirrorless replacement on the market. To me, this creates a marketing hole that Canon can exploit.

I dunno about that. I've had the camera ON for over two hours at a time, on my Olympus. When I shoot sports, once the game starts, I normally do not power down the camera until the end of the game.

The f/2.8 is great in LOW light, but it has a cost: $, bulk and weight. It is one thing to hold the lens for 5 minutes in a store, but totally another thing using it on a 5+ hour shoot. So, like @Dieter Schaefer , I went with the f/4 lens. While the f/4 lens is a stop slower than the f/2.8 lens, it is HALF the weight of the f/2.8 lens. In the compromise, I traded off lens speed for lighter weight. After 5 hours of shooting, I was glad I made that compromise. However, if you are young and physically in good condition, then just the f/2.8 would be an option. If you shoot often in LOW light, that 1 stop faster could be important. You have to determine the needs of what and how you shoot. Now, as to having both f/4 and f/2.8 lenses. Yes, there is a case for it. The standard carry might be the lighter f/4 lens, then for low light or shallower DoF, you would use the f/2.8 lens. Or, flip it around, and the standard lens might be the heavier f/2.8 lens, with the f/4 lens use where the smaller bulk and lighter weight are more important. I do somewhat similar in m4/3. I have the smaller/lighter (and cheaper) non-pro lens, and the bigger/heavier pro-lens. Which lens I use, depends on the conditions and requirements of the shoot. If I need small/light, I choose the non-pro lens. If size/weight is not an issue, I choose the pro-lens.

Just remove the battery grip to use the Pro-E. If you must use the battery grip, it looks like the Pro-M is the one that works with a battery grip.

I found it to be a TREMENDOUS benefit to have someone right next to me, helping me with a problem I am having. That is the problem with books and video. If you have a question, what do you do, who do you ask ???

For me a few things: #1 - Start simple, or your brain will be overwhelmed with data. Get A book or video, STUDY it, then go out and shoot, and try to apply what you learned. Just keep in mind that what you are learning is only ONE of many methods, ideas, etc. And expect to change as you learn more, later. #2 - GET OUT AND SHOOT. As has been said, you get better by shooting, and developing your eye. For me there is a BIG difference between book and video, vs going out and actually shooting. Don't like what you shot? WHY? Go out and try again, with that knowledge. #3 - Don't just concentrate on a few books or video. Be open to every place to learn from. Museums, art galleries, internet, post cards, etc. etc. BTW, there is a difference between people. Some will look at a scene and be able to compose a pic in a few seconds. These are the exceptions. Others, like me, will have to spend a LONG time studying the scene to get a pic not even close to the person above. And others in between.

Addrressing the OP. I presume you just want to remove the film from the camera, and scrap the unexposed part of the film. I think on the Hassleblad, you have to remove the back from the camera, then you can wind the take up knob. Then to QG However, the next question that some will ask is . . . How to save the last X frames on the roll to finish it off later? Why? If it is to switch film from B&W to color or ISO 100 to 400, a back change is how to do it. As [uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER] said, that is one of the purposes of the removable backs. Now if you were shooting a TLR or a SLR without a removable back, the picture changes. You have to do it the hard way. The other thing is, if you wind the film forward, to "save the last x frames." You have to rewind the film in the darkroom (or changing bag) to get the roll of film so that you can load it again. As I recall, the 120 film is taped to the backing at only one end, the front. The film is not designed to load from the back end of the roll. You have to rewind the film, to load from the front. With 35mm film, sometimes I used to save part of the roll. 35mm cameras did not have removable backs. We would note how many frames were shot. Then rather than wind forward, we rewind back into the cartridge, leaving the leader sticking out. So that took care of that issue. On the reload, we always sacrificed a couple frames after the number of frames previously shot, because of uncertainty of where the last exposed frame was on the film. As for TWO Christmases on the same roll. In the old days of film, it was more common than people today think. Back then, many people were FRUGAL That is because many had lived through the depression and then the rationing of WW2. So they did not waste. 2 shots for XMas, 1 for son's birthday, 1 for daughter's birthday, 2 at the next XMas. And that is only half of a 12x roll. When I first started 35mm, I wondered WHY there wasn't a 12x roll, and how I was going to shoot 20 frames, much less 36.

I recall that the short duration of the flash was some of the advertising.

hmmm Sounds like a fun experiment. Maybe I should dig out my potato mashers also (that is what we called them). Don't have as many, Honeywell Strobonar 800 (my old workhorse), and three different Sunpaks (I think I have a 622 but don't remember what the other two are).

62V ??? Where are you located? I thought all AC was either 110 or 220volts. Here is the page out of the M605 manual. Does the front of your enlarger look like the green circle in the pic above? Or the blue circle below? The M605 with the color head uses a dichroic bulb 12V and I think 100w. I suspect you have the color head on your enlarger. dupe pic below

@janet cull What bulb did you get? According to the manual, the M605 uses a 150w bulb (PH212) On my m600, I found 150w to be toooo bright, and went down to 75w (PH211), which was still marginally too bright. I would have preferred a 30w bulb. @AJG same as the 605

YUP, it was a real pain to setup and use. Definitely an example of "jack of all trades, master of none." Which is why I was looking for a field camera, off and on.

Yup there are limits to wheels. If it is too rough for wheels, I probably won't go there with my 4x5. As I dang well don't want to lug the gear by foot. I might take the 6x6 instead.

Yup. My monorail is a LOT bigger and clumsy than a nice field camera. Some field cameras fold up and form their own case, my monorail has to go into another case. I've been thinking about getting a Crown Graphic or similar to use as a field camera. The monorail is nice, but a logistical pain.

I first used a luggage cart with a plastic milk carton case to hold everything. But the milk carton case did not fold, so it became a hassle to put in the car. Then I got a folding cart something like this one: https://www.amazon.com/Two-Wheeled-Collapsible-Handcart-Rolling-lightweight/dp/B0798DJF9Z/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?dchild=1&keywords=tote+cart&link_code=qs&qid=1613016069&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExN0JDWTFSUVJCRktGJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMjE3MTYyVlkxRUdGSFpKNFFRJmVuY3J5cHRlZEFkSWQ9QTA4NzM5MDBLUTdKMFhXNVk4TVUmd2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGYmYWN0aW9uPWNsaWNrUmVkaXJlY3QmZG9Ob3RMb2dDbGljaz10cnVl The problem was the wheel was too small. Small wheels do not work well on anything but smooth surfaces. Then I found a similar cart that had large wheels. I think it got it at either Office Depot or Staples. But dang if I can find that cart any place online. The large wheels make it SO much easier to pull on less than smooth surfaces. I have been using this for the past few years. At a large format photo outing, I saw a gal with something like one of these: https://www.amazon.com/Timber-Ridge-Camping-Collapsible-Shopping/dp/B078M28P22/ref=sr_1_18?dchild=1&keywords=tote+cart&link_code=qs&qid=1613016652&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-18 It easily held her 5x7 camera, tripod, and gear. There are many different variations of this cart. Some with only 3 wheels, some with WIDE wheels for going on soft ground. Because it is larger than my current cart, I think something like this will be my next cart.