david_ralph1

The new interface is new. That is its only apparent virtue, it is new and different.

It is not facile. It is not clear. Huge amounts of screen space are wasted with large boxes. Drivel. Wasting our time and eyes.

It is slow. Firefox wanted to block it for lack of a proper certificate. This last is not a problem.

What is a problem is that it is poorly organized. That fact that there are colorful, huge boxes occupying the screen does not help anything.

You know, most of the people who read this site in the past can actually read, and they are for the most part pretty good at reading.

That skill of being literate is not much help in encountering the new look. Trying to find what used to be was pretty futile.

Little buttons work just as well as huge ones. Better when they actually have html in them.

So, what is the organizing scheme? What was the point of the change? How does the collection of huge boxes help the members locate photos, discussion, etc.

The old organization pretty much put the entire site up at the top of the first screen, via well known and accepted drop down menus. The fact that there were other indicators below was nice, and in the end dupicative.

Sorry, folks. This was not a welcome surprise today. Not helpful. My time is precious, and life is short.

<p>That old Nikkor 55mm 3.5f Micro, AI'd, is a very nice macro lens. Reaches 1-1 with an extension tube. Use one myself.</p>

<p>Still shooting film, both 35mm and medium format? Amazing! Doesn't the Pentax require a tripod for best sharpness, especially for landscape? Tell us how you make out.</p>

<p>I haven't tried this, but I see no reason why the ES-1 and an Fx body, and no extension tubes, such as one of the D800 series, could not be used with the 40mm Dx Micro in Dx mode. Still a reasonable number of pixels for most images but with the advantage of autofocus to speed things up.</p>

<p>Depends on the size of the sensor and the magnification of the lens. You raise the possibility of other lenses, and I do not think you indicated what kinds of camera body you were thinking of using. That leaves us to speculate on what you have and flop around rather than just to provide a dedicated response. Nikon or somebody else's?</p>

<p>For crop sensor Nikons, the new 40mm autofocus Dx macro lens is new and unique IF you are using a Dx camera -- any Dx camera body will do, although the modern ones with higher pixel density would likely do better for resolution. The 40mm will autofocus on the slide just fine, are the reports.<br>

<br /><br />For Fx, full sensor sizes, some of us have used the old manual focus 55mm Nikkor micros, 3.5 or 2.8. They are sharp and are known to have a flat field of focus on the sensor -- often regarded as superior to many lenses for copying flat subjects because everything will be in sharp focus. For this lens on Fx, one needs extension tubes as it does not natively go 1-1. [Google the lens if you want the history of the extension tube developed to go with the lens for macro work -- but not necessarily an Ai or better interface for use with a digital body.] Take a look at the Nikonians blog which I linked to above. I use my 55mm f3.5 Nikkor Micro, which I have had for a very long time, the ES-1 and Kenko extension tubes.<br>

<br />If you do much macro work a set of extension tubes can be very handy. The Kenko tubes maintain autofocus and metering info for many Nikon cameras; Nikon's tubes do not. Some of the older Nikon extension tubes should not be used on a modern Nikon digital body. My old 55mm was converted to AI which made it safe to use. The old lenses tend to be pretty cheap on the used market, but pay attention to whether the lens is AI or you will need to spend a little to get it converted by the folks out there who do that pretty reasonably.</p>

<p>The most simple solution if you have a Dx body is to get the new 40mm Dx macro lens from Nikon. Less than $300 at B&H, and about $30 less than B&H but refurbished from Nikonusa.com.</p>

<p>Oh, and for any of these easy Nikon solutions you need the ES-1 slide copy attachment which just screws into the filter threads on a 52mm lens front. I suppose you could use step down rings for other lenses. And, extensions tubes would enable larger magnification of a portion of a slide, where the simple rigs are basically a set up to copy the entire slide. Since the ES-1 is attached to the camera, you do not even need a tripod because it is one rigid unit. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37453-REG/Nikon_3213_ES_1_Slide_Copying_Adapter.html</p>

<p>Either way works. Pick your poison. Or, you could spend a lot more $$ on rails, bellows, mounting other lenses, reversing lens rings, etc. That could be a lot of fun though, especially for other macro work.</p>

<p>In the Nikon camera world, you might want to read this Nikonians blog post about slide copying solutions for Fx an Dx cameras, myself being surprised by the Dx solution. There are more elaborate equipment rigs, and much more expensive, with bellows on rails, which will not accomplish anything more if that is your goal copying slides.<br /> http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=169&topic_id=58028#58057<br /> I have used a commercial service to copy old slides. While convenient for a large number of slides, the quality is a rather low resolution jpg file. Good for the web, but not very good a for a print.<br /> Copies made with my Nikon D800E and an old manual 55mm f3.5 Micro P, Ai'd, have been quite good using the ES-1 slide copier attachment and extension tubes. [i believe the early manual 55mm Micros had the option of a dedicated extension tube to get to 1:1, which is essentially what you are doing with Fx and 35mm slides.] With a Dx body, and the new autofocus 40mm micro, and the ES-1, reports are quite good, with autofocus seeming to work well, with no need for an extension tube.<br /> I have an Epson V700 flatbed, which I bought several years ago for photo and slide copying. While I think it very good for most photo copying, I just do not want to mess with it for slides. YMMV.<br /> In years past, I had a bellows arrangement on a film SLR; the resulting images, from a color lab, were so harshly contrasty that I gave it up entirely until digital came along. We are in a better era now.</p>

<p>Interestingly Brad Hill's continuing comparison of the 200-500mm 5.6 to similar zooms finds that the Nikon 80-400mm zoom goes soft after 380mm relative to <strong>all</strong> of the competing zooms. His original analysis of the 80-400mm about a year ago was much more glowing. Most of look for sharpness at the longest end of zooms in this category as we tend to already have pretty capable mid range zooms at more modest cost. If the long end is not sharp, why buy it? That was the complaint heard from many about the earlier Sigma zooms, soft at the long end. Those of us who want the long end for wildlife may have to re-think the 80-400mm as it appears not to compete well at 400mm with the Sigma sport or the primes. </p>

<p>See, his notes at http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html, at paragraph "3. Optical Quality - Preliminary Findings and Thoughts...", under the heading, "23 September 2015: Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6E VR - A Cautionary Green Light?"</p>

<p>How about using safe, solid, and cheap substitutes while you save up for the tripod for the rest of your life. One that will still be used when the D800E is tired, obsolete technology? Bean Bag? Heavy duty clamps? On this latter check out Adorama or B&H. You have $US 4,700 in camera and lens. The camera requires rock solid support to operate at its potential. Like some of the others, I have several pods which were wasted money, and now serve as the occasional light stand for a speed light.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan's "classic" how to buy a pod article. Circa 2003. Choices change, but the truths remain.<br>

http://bythom.com/support.htm</p>

<p>Nikonians article to the same effect. Some bias on choices as they sell pods and heads as well. But the truths again are true.<br>

http://www.nikonians.org/tripods/</p>

<p>http://diglloyd.com/articles/Recommended/tripod.html</p>

Contact an attorney. Some states have

statutory protections against the

commercial use of images without

permission. (E.g, NY where I practice.)

Some uses may constitute a tort. If this

really matters to your professional

standing and development, invest

some money in professional advice.

Penny wise and pound foolish is not a

good course where your future may be

at stake.

<p>Jon Eckman, I love classic sports cars, and yours is a special classic. It looks very nice in BRG.</p>

<p>The Exif reveals that you keep classic cameras around too. I was thinking that these days, digital cameras age faster than cars.</p>

<p>One wants the solution to a problem to be the simple one, even if it turns out to be embarrassing. Most of you got it. The camera came with an SD card, which I did not want to deal with, preferring the CF cards. At some point I must have put it back in the camera as an emergency backup or for lack of a better place to keep it. And, as Mike Halliwell noted, the SD card is nearly invisble. The camera must have defaulted back to to the SD card when I put it back in.</p>

<p>So, all is well. Although it took slightly longer than forever for the SD card to copy to my machine.</p>

<p>I apologize to everyone whose time I burdened. Though, it was not wasted. I was prepared to go ahead first with the cable, and then to try to the recovery software. Reminding me about the SD card was the solution.</p>

<p>No excuse, but every digital camera I have used from the get go, a Canon point and shoot from 10 years ago or so, to the D70s up through the recent D800E all used Compact Flash cards. I really never wanted to deal with SD cards (and still do not), in part because I shoot a lot of landscape and in the woods, and SD cares are just too easy to lose, drop in the grass or whatever, and so the blinkety blink thing was totally out of my mind. Then, there is that slow download too.</p>

<p>Again, sorry to have taken up folks' time, although do not think that I am not grateful for the responses as I am. This site is a great resource.</p>

<p>Dave Ralph</p>

<p>I took a few macro shots today with D800E with a Lexar 800x 32GB UDMA7 memory card.</p>

<p>The images can be seen on the D800E screen. However, using a Lexar USB 3.0 card reader, the computer "sees" that it is from a D800E, but it says the card is empty and that there are no files on the card. Putting the card back into the camera reveals that all the images are there, the good, bad and the ugly.</p>

<p>How can I read the files on this card?</p>

<p>By way of history, when I got the Lexar cards, my old Lexar reader could not read the cards. Truly frustrating. I had to get the updated card reader as Lexar's previous reader could not handle their own UDMA7 cards. In trying to figure out what occurred on the cards, I swapped one or two of them into my D700, where they worked fine, but also could not be read by the old card reader. I put that history out there as perhaps there is more than one directory, or maybe I flumuxed the formatting in one camera or not the other.</p>

<p>I use Photomechanic to download and preview images, and it will not ingest the files, though it senses the D800E on the card. When I use Win7's Explorere/My Computer, the machine reports the empty card with a DCIM folder/directory, which it reports as empty.</p>

<p>I have not yet tried the cable for the camera, buried in the box somewhere, and I am having thoughts about downloading Lexar's file recovery software.</p>

<p>I have avoided formating as that elminates all images, unless, of course, they can be dragged out using file recovery software.</p>

<p>Ideas cheerfully considered, but not necessary adopted. TIA<br /> Dave Ralph</p>

<p>The camera is challenging more so than any other DSLR, but which can deliver the best image possible in any DSLR available. For some, the D800/e camera is too much to deal with. For others, it is a wonderful tool with lots of room to grow into.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>At first my fiance used it after I abandoned my D70s. And, she won a prize in our photo club with one of the first pictures she took with it five years ago, blown up to 13" x 19" very nicely.</p>

<p>Think about this. How about converting it to an infrared camera? I did. The body can be adjusted to focus well with the original kit zoom lens, which as you know is a pretty good lens. I have had some fun with the converted camera, and it was better than letting it collect dust.</p>

<p>There may be better candidates, but you have two of them just sitting around.</p>

<p>Steve, I saw your last post after I uploaded the above. While VR does stabililize the lens/camera for <em>your</em>, the photographer's own movements, VR does not stabilize <em>any</em> moving objects in the scene -- ever. You will get a sharp, still background from VR, and blurred subjects which move, every time. The ONLY real solution for speeding objects is high shutter speed, or sometimes very good panning of the camera to track the moving object (which will in turn blur the background). The idea that shutter speed is equivalently increased by VR is not valid except for a dead, still scene.</p>

<p>The D800/800E are very, very demanding cameras. They require both the utmost in shot discipline, and they also require very good lenses. If either element is lacking from the formula, then the image will suffer. These are not very good cameras for casual shooting in comparison to other cameras, such as the D700, which could be very forgiving on shot discipline. The discipline and lenses required by the D800 sensor ask more than many people are prepared to put into making their images, or expense into their lens collections.</p>

<p>When the D800/e were first introduced, Nikon took the unusual step of publishing a pdf technical guide for using the D800, with suggestions for techniques achieving the most detail and clarity for an exposure. I do not recall Nikon doing that for any other DSLR. The guide shows demonstrations of lost detail, e.g., when not using a technique such as mirror up or focusing from live view for precision. The guide contains a list of Nikon lenses which can yield sharp photos page 16. For the most part, they are expensive, pro glass. None of the 70-300mm lenses is found in the guide. (Nor any of the 50mm lenses.) Then later, Nikon Professional Services published an updated recommended lens list. The guide can be found by Googling.<br /> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nikonusa.com%2Fen_US%2Fo%2FY6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII%2FPDF%2FD800_TechnicalGuide_En.pdf&ei=oRhvUrPlN47_4AP06oD4Aw&usg=AFQjCNEnyKPw9OJxy4lgHWGtzXp9ETnWfQ&bvm=bv.55123115,d.dmg<br /> http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d800_d800e_tips/d800e/</p>

<p>Some respected photographers have posted lists of lenses which have done well, or poorly on the D800/e. Ming Thein comes to mind. He does a lot of studio, street and architectural assignments. His list is instructive, and he interacts with folks who ask intelligent questions. <br /> http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/06/30/recommended-lenses-for-the-nikon-d800e/</p>

<p>Nikon guru Thom Hogan has a wordy article, quotes the NPS list, but is kinder to the 70-300mm if you burrow down.<br /> http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/camera-accessories/nikon-d800-accessories/d800-lens-sets.html</p>

<p>DxO also has published a list of lenses for the D800/e. More extreme zoom ratios like 70-300mm did not fare well.<br /> http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Which-lenses-for-your-Nikon-D800</p>

<p>Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals does interesting bench testing for the D800:<br /> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d800-lens-selection</p>

<p>Bottom line, the camera is demanding, and it eats expensive lenses for breakfast, lunch and dinner. One of the rules of thumb from the film days alluded to in a post or two above, to use a minimum shutter speed equal to one over the lens length in mm is just no longer true for most DSLRs. Higher shutter speeds are needed in digital compared to the needs of film. At least twice the focal length, and maybe go for three times the focal length if you want sharpness. The tiny pixels of the D800/e sensor are just way too small in width for the angular deflection inherent in slower shutter speed but which film and earlier, large pixel width, sensors might let one get away with. See, for instance, commentary on the Luminous Landscape regarding former film practices that do not cut it on modern digital sensors. The camera is great to use, and it is cruel too.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>To John H</p>

<p>You miss the point. There is zero argument about who owns the copyright under the tortured statement of the facts. The general rules have been broadly repeated here and need little repeating. He pushed the button, and she has not articulated facts to meet one of the exceptions. That is not the point here, and it is almost never the point in an ordinary wedding transaction as the bride and groom receive images and the license to make use of them. Otherwise, there would no sense to hiring a wedding photographer.</p>

<p>The key question is what was to become of the images taken, who was to receive them and have what use of them regardless of whether photographer retains the copyright otherwise. <em><strong>Any</strong></em> wedding photographer retains copyright without other contractual agreement; that is always the case. And, every bride and groom always receive pictures and can always make ordinary use of them. They receive a license to use the copyrighted material, and the photographer retains the copyright. Here, there is an oral agreement to make a gift of wedding pictures, from a photographer to a bride and groom. The understanding of that gift will be taken in the common understanding of such a transaction since there is no other written agreement to limit the license the gift represents.</p>

<p>There is another legal principal that arises from the broken promise by the fiance. The fiance has damaged the bride and groom because of their reliance upon his false promise, the false gift. Without his failure to honor his contract by providing images with the ordinarily understood license one receives with them, the bride and groom would have been able to make other arrangements to memorialize this important and unique occasion. The fact that the promise was made by both the mother of the bride and also by her fiance, creates a special circumstance. Family members can, and expect, to rely on promises made in reliance upon a special family relationship where stranger, otherwise, would memorialize the agreement in writing. This is often called a constructive trust. Courts have the equitable power when there is reliance upon a false promise, especially where created in a special relationship, to force the photographer to make it right. There is the alternative legal claim of damages against the photographer. While damages are not measured here in precise dollars and cents, such as a ton of corn not delivered, in the hands of a good advocate, the emotional and mental anguish from a spoiled wedding have the potential to loom larger than the fiance may want to think about. I doubt that he has insurance to pay for his defense counsel, but also, unfortunately he is likely not financially responsible to make good on a judgment against him.</p>

<p>Again, the issue is not who has nominal ownership of the copyright. The issue is whether the images should have been delivered with a reasonable license for their use as any bride and groom would expect.</p>

<p>"So here is my scenario. My mom's fiance <em><strong>offered to do our wedding photos for free. We didn't ask, he offered." . . .<br /></strong></em><br /> "She said that he used to be a photographer and he was really good <em><strong>and he wanted to do the pictures for us as a gift."</strong> </em><br /> <em><strong><br /></strong></em>Those are essential elements of <em><strong>your version</strong></em> of the relationship between fiance and the two of you. <strong><em>You quote both of them making a wedding gift.</em></strong> (Perhaps because of a financial inability to make any other gift.) That is <em><strong>your version</strong></em> of the contract.</p>

<p>They images cannot both be a gift and also be something which you have to purchase. One does not purchase a gift. <em><strong>He gave you the memory card with the image files.</strong></em>That act is not consistent with retaining and exercising copyright powers to prevent your having the images. The story of following events, however, is contrary to the idea of a gift of the images. To claim, and then exercise, copyright powers, fiance has to argue that he was not making a gift of wedding photos, rather he was doing something to profit from taking the images, profit at the expense of the bride and groom. Not a very compelling story to make to a decision maker in a courtroom. Have you memorialized any agreements? Did you send a thank you card? is it legal in your state to record telephone conversations?</p>

<p>The issue is not copyright. The issue is whether a gift of the images was offered and accepted as a wedding present. If copyright restraints are imposed, there is not much of a gift left.</p>

<p>You do need to speak to an attorney. It might be interesting to know what a counselor might say about the best way to deal with a relative who might be an alcoholic. Presumably Mom and fiance can hear about and then read this very public discussion about them on Photo.net, with opinions expressed about character, addiction, claims of broken promises, and dysfunctional relationships, all of which may not produce peace in the valley. I do hope this somehow works out for you and a future relationship with your mother.</p>

<p>It's a wide angle. So, focus will not be much of a problem when it is stopped down a bit. From a few inches to infinity. Perhaps download a depth of field chart for 14mm vs. aperture.</p>

<p>It would be great to see a few images of Iceland upon your return. Boy voyage!</p>

<p>There is a lot of good advice above on the differences between the wides.</p>

<p>However, I am going to suggest not taking any ultrawide lens at all. Why?</p>

<p>1. Weight. You already have a D700 and 24-70mm 2.8, a fine lens which I own, both of those being pretty heavy items, and the combination being a bear to carry around all day long, day after day on a trip. I have left my D700 home at times, and traveled with something lighter, even the D300 and a Dx kit lens (actually quite sharp, just a tad slow inside), a cheap and light weight Sigma ultrawide, and a prime or two, for to lessen the weight issue.</p>

<p>2. Unfamiliarity with UWA. Unless you plan to practice a lot before the trip, and get an eye for the kind of UWA images you want, a trip is not the time develop the skill so perceiving and then shooting an image is second nature. The fact is that the 24mm end on that professional zoom you already have is a very wide lens; it's just not "ultra" wide. A few decades ago, 28mm was considered the widest angle most serious amateurs might go to. These days, with better optics, and better post processing, 24mm is the new amateur wide angle lens. That 24-70 will probably cover 95% of your wide angle needs.</p>

<p>3. I do not want to be a poop. If you really want an UWA, then by all means get one and then lug it to Iceland! Mine is the 14-24mm, and it is a gem. But it is also as heavy as a boat anchor after a couple of days carrying it around all day long. That is why I have left it home on trips. Maybe think about something lighter weight if your UWA is to be a travel lens.</p>

<p>Just my $.02.</p>

<p>The neck strap is a style that was ubiquitous in the 80's. One issue to be aware of with that style of strap is presented by the large metal snaps that are hooked onto the camera body. Over time, those large snaps can scratch or ding the camera or other items in your camera bag. I had one almost exactly like yours on my black FE body, and it attached with the very same kind of hooks. The hooks wore away the black finish on the corner edges of the camera body exposing the brass underneath. </p>

<p>Looks a lot like a Nikon FM, probably 30 years old ,but I have trouble making out the serial number in the photo posted. Look at the serial number on the back just below the film advance/shutter cocking lever. If so, needs button batteries for the light meter. Fully manual, focus, shutter speed and aperture set manually, after consulting a light meter. A solid consumer SLR in its day. The lens might be worth more than the body, but no much in either event. This camera is a perfect student camera if the shutter works.</p>

<p>To see if there is film in the camera, mover the rewind lever on the left top to see if there is resistence. Moving the stutter lever should move the rewind lever is there is film in the camera. You can probably find a pdf copy of the manual on line by googling "instruction manual nikon fm"</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_FM</p>

<p>This database can give you an idea of the lens' date of manufacture. http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html</p>

<p>Ebay, or www.keh.com might give you an idea of the value of the body or lens. See also used departments at B&H or Adorama.</p>

<p>If you want to mess with film, it is a wonderful tool for instruction as you will learn what shutter speed and aperture do and the relationship with the available light. Otherwise, I suggest you get something digital.</p>

<p>Have fun!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Reichmann and Schewe use Photoshop and Lightroom, more lately Lightroom. I learned a lot from the original version of Camera to Print. I think that your being an CNX2 and Elements user will not make much difference to the utility of their video to you. </p>

<p>I too initially use CNX2 for processing my RAW images, which is about I all shoot. I made a point of learning CNX2 thoroughly, going through a couple of books on it. I like how it converts the RAW files, how it produces an image that adheres to the camera's settings, non-destructive editing, and the U-point technology built into it by NIK Software. (All bets are off on the future of CNX2 though since Google bought out NIK; no one knows really what Nikon is planning for the future of CNX2 or what intellectual rights in it they retain after the sale, and their earlier infusion of money into NIK. I can picture us all only in Lightroom or PS at some time in the future.) CNX2 is more stable lately, but instability was a real pain a few years ago. However, for pixel level editing, for the plugins that I have, and for color managed printing I use Photoshop. I have not followed Elements since trying out Version 2 several years ago, and being very unhappy about the interface, at the time being new to digital and unlearning some of my wet darkroom thinking. It is my understanding from folks in my photo club that Elements has come a long way, including having added layers; some plug ins work in Elements as well as PS.</p>

<p>I liked Michael Reichmann's video series because it was comprehensive, conversational, and because they followed the workflow necessary from capture, to editing to framing the final print. Both instructors bring around 40 years of professional photography experience, Jeff Schewe being intertwined in testing and feedback with the Knoll brothers who invented PS. I believe the output sharpening routine of Pixelgenius' Photokit Sharpener has now been adopted by Lightroom. (Though I still use Photoshop with the plugin.) I learned of Jeff Schewe and Photokit Sharpener after struggling through Bruce Fraser's book on sharpening.</p>

<p>Certainly there are other sources and many good books. Video and oral presentation are another style of learning that can augment that found in books. The original version of the series I cited above was very good for me, and it adheres to high standard from the start to the finished product. I occasionally read about a pros out today who credit these guys for getting them onto the right track. YMMV</p>

<p>Of equal importance, what is your take on what Nikon will do with the D6 and D950?</p>

<p>People who post information about monitors which are not wide gamut and which are not calibrated, really do not understand the utility and importance of that ability to making a fine art photographic print. Much of the information posted here from reliable sources has gone right by them. E.g., anyone not editing in the Prophoto RGB color space is not even seeing a lot of the data in their raw image; sRGB is technically deficient for this purpose.</p>

<p>For such folks, I suggest buying no monitor at all. That will avoid purposeless wasting of money and the time of the original poster and the rest of us. Instead, a far better use for the money is to purchase and acquire education and training on how to make a fine art print. One good starting point is this well respected video series:</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/tutorials/camera_to_print_and_screen.shtml</p>

<p>BTW, Jeff Schewe is partners with Andrew Rodney, above, and several other notables, such as the late Bruce <br />Fraser and Martin Evening, in the Pixelgenius venture which produced the Photokit Sharpener plugin, without which I do not print anything that I care about. Until one is familiar with the information in that series, one is not really in a place to recommend a monitor for the production of fine art print. If you did not read and understand the link Andrew posted, why even post here at this point?</p>