acarodp

March 16, 2010

The main advantage of the D200 is a significantly better build and sealing, a somewhat faster response, a more professional ergonomics. In favor of the D90 you have better noise characteristics (1 stop) and better DR. You could get both with a used D300, plus an even better AF, but between the two, I would wonder: do you need more the "pro body" or the small improvement in IQ?

I can tell you, when th D300 came out I looked at it but it just was not enough a step forward with respect to the D200, and I would never have gone for the D90 because it would have been a step down in terms of body quality and sealing. You have to decide what is more important for you.

L.

March 14, 2010

That thread was closed because the Nikon Forum has an aversion to certain topics.

</blockquote>

Should this imply that the same thread, titled "Is Nikon better value than Canon?" and phrased accordingly, would have been better received in the Canon forum? I don't know why but I'm skeptical.

In fact, there should be a "Nikon vs Canon" forum specifically to give these people a place to argue without interfering with the rest of us.

</blockquote>

I don't believe dpreview has ceased operations. The Nikon and the Canon fora over there are fantastic places to practice brand-bashing at a professional level, and they are rich of exceptionally talented characters in this highly challenging sport ;-).I don't think we need another venue for this.

This one being a photography site, not a gear site, I personally appreciate the fact that most people here actually use the cameras they buy and thus tend to notice by personal experience that brand wars are meaningless. Efforts by moderators to preserve this situation are appreciated by me.

Cheers

L.

March 14, 2010

There is a current thread on the Nikon forum which questions the relative value of Nikon vs. Canon

</blockquote>

So, since that thread was closed because it ended up in the classical foolish C vs N debate, you decided to open another one, which has already degraded into a N vs C debate...

Makes lot of sense to me ;-)

L.

March 14, 2010

i also have never had weather-related issues with the D700 -- except with the grip. it only takes a drop of water to cause a short in the contacts between the body and grip. so if you want to use the D700 in inclement weather, leave the grip at home.

</blockquote>

You say this because you DID experience a short, or because you fear this can happen? I ask for two reasons, first, that my D700 + MB D10 got some significant rain already and did not care the least. Second, because if you look at the two contact sets between D700 and grip, they are both protected by o-rings, one set has it on the grip, the other on the camera, and are thus sealed when the grip is mounted even if water infiltrates between grip and camera. Of course, you should mount and unmount the grip in a dry place. The MB D10 is claimed to be sealed as well in the various possible water entry points (battery door, wheels, buttons...), and looks much better built than the MB D200 which I got soaked more than once without a trouble.

I am not concerned about the weather resistance of Nikons in this price class: I have a much longer experience with the D200 than with the D700, but in any aspect I can see and feel both the D700 and the MB D10 are even better built than D200+MB D200. The different card door opening system in the D700 might not look as cool as the one on the D200, but I fail to see why this should in any way influence its sealing quality.

I came to have a lot of respect for the way these cameras are built, and I'm pretty confident that if I can handle it, they can handle it. They always did. Which of course does not mean that give them some protection if possible is a bad idea, on the contrary.

Cheers

L.

March 13, 2010

I'm pretty sure all the new cameras will have progressively higher pixel counts as computers get faster and are able to more easily process the data without hiccup. So IMO we are better off choosing lenses based on performance with the D3X.

</blockquote>

I agree with you on the fact that cameras will all go a bit more up in resolution, although I don't know how much more. But if I can get a bit philosophical and a bit off-topic here: camera pixel count is not what I base my choices on. My photos have two uses: web, and print, which never exceeds A3. I actually dislike large prints. I am an amateur of course, so I can do precisely what I like from this point of view. I do mostly street photography, and the limiting factor for me in terms of resolution is not pixel count, but motion blur and focus precision. I will never exploit a level of resolution requiring tripod and mirror-up, or all the other subtleties that landscape photographers need to systematically get the best out of 20+ MP. I have shot with a D3x and I can easily say that that level of resolution for my style is useless, and more, gets in the way.

So for what I'm concerned cameras might well go to 100 MP. At some point, I might well buy one of them but surely not because of the 100 MP, more likely despite them. In the kind of photos I do, the final product will never take advantage of anything much beyond 12 MP. So, to go on with the hyperbole, because I had to buy a 100 MP camera because it was all that was available, should I also sell all my lenses and replace them with stuff that outresolves 100 MP, when I will never be able to keep my subject still enough to use 100 MP, AND my final print will never make any use of 100 MP?

This assessment of course is solely based on my needs, and its conclusions do not pretend to be universal. On the other hand I believe the principle should be universal, that needs are measured on the final result one is after. But I have the impression that a lot of people are more after "what can be done" than after "what thy want to do".

Ciao

L.

March 12, 2010

Perhaps I was not explaining myself well: the 16-35 does about the same kind of work on FX as the 12-24 does on DX: same range of FOV (ok, 12dx=18fx), same aperture. And I'm looking for a 12-24 equivalent for FX. Besides, I own a D200 and a D700 so the kind of resolutions (here meaning MP) I use are practically equivalent between the two formats. So for me, comparing a 16-35 on fx with a 12-24 in dx makes sense to answer the question: will this lens give me the same level of performance in fx as I had in dx with the 12-24? If the answer is yes, I can get the lens, since the 12-24 performance is OK for me.

Now, according to PZ, the answer would be no, since, for example, comparing 16mm f4 with 12mm f4 I get for the 12-24 excellent/very good/good (center, borders, corners), versus for the 16-35 excellent/good/poor. I am here assuming (which I suppose is fair enough) that the broad classifications are comparable. What is not clear to me is what would be the effect of testing with a D3 / D700 instead than with a D3x. Would the LW/PH scale simply down but the broad categories remain the same (i.e. if it is "good" on D3x would still be "good" on D3)? I'm not 100% sure I have to say, e.g. the photoreview numbers look quite similar between 14-24 and 16-35 and this is a test made on a D3s. When the SLRgear review will come it will be interesting in this respect since I believe they use the D700 as full frame test body. In principle, I am not really interested to know how the lens performs a 24 MP, since I have personally no need for such a resolution, and I don't foresee ever needing it.

So, if I believe PZ, if I shoot the same photo, say, at 12mm f4 with the D200+12-24 and with the 16-35+D700 at 18mm f4, I should get somewhat sharper results with the D200+12-24 combo. Is this true? I'm not so sure, some of the samples I have seen seem to say the contrary, some instead are quite bad. This is why I'm puzzled.

L.

March 12, 2010

Myself, I am a bit surprised. I am looking to this lens as a fx version of my 12-24 f4, and according to PZ it is worse than the 12-24 is on DX. On the other hand, I have seen a number of examples online where this lens performs quite well in the corners. then again, the Photoreview review seems much more positive.

I have to say I am not happy of the test images posted on PZ this time... there is almost no image where corners are in focus, which makes any assessment difficult, except the (expected) one that this lens has a really, really ugly bokeh ;-).

Other than this, I wonder whether there is a problem of QC with this new lens, since some samples seem to perform quite fine, and some not. This would of course not be a point in its favor. Then again, to put it on a D3x makes its limitation come out more than my eyes are used to: I tried resizing to 12 MP to simulate my D700, and it looks, of course much better: like this I would say it resembles a lot what I get from D200 + 12-24...

Fortunately for me, I will not be seriously considering a purchase before a year or so, so I can see all the possible reviews come out in between...

L.

March 12, 2010

Canon always seem to "give" you a bit more than Nikon

</blockquote>

Like what? megapixel? Now they are, and Nikon wins in high ISO noise. In the past generation (D40 vs D200 for example) it was the opposite. If you want more MP, now Canon is giving more (D3x excluded). But at the previous generation you should have thought the opposite. So how can it be "always"? I have nothing against Canon products, I don't use them but I'm sure they are great. but I don't see your statement as very rational.

Take for example similarly priced full frame DSLRs...Nikon D700 (12MP, $2400) vs Canon 5D Mark II (21MP, $2500). Am I missing something here? Is Canon truly a better value or is Nikon a better DSLR in terms of technology and build quality when compared to an similarly priced Canon?

</blockquote>

Yes you are, but I'm surprised of this since it is pretty obvious: if you are wondering why Nikon wants you to pay the same for half the pixels and no video, you are missing superior AF, superior frame rate, superior DR, superior high ISO, superior metering, flash metering and build quality.

On the other hand, if you wonder why Canon wants you to pay the same for lesser AF, lesser build quality etc etc, you are missing higher pixel count and video. D700 and 5D2 are simply cameras optimized for different users. For me, a D700 is the better value given the things I need. For a landscape shooter I guess it is the opposite. For most purposes they are likely both extremely competent.

a camera that sits/priced between D90 and D300 or D300 and D700

</blockquote>

What you see here is an age-old game that Nikon and Canon are playing with each other: they almost never place their products straight one against the other in price terms. So an user that wants something between D90 and D300 might get a 60D, and an user who wants something between 60D and 7D might get a D300. The 5D2/D700 case is in fact the exception, price wise. And still, they optimized the cameras differently in terms of specifications. This way, they both get more sales, and a non-committed user has more choice. Of course, a committed user might end with his brand of choice not providing the mix of features and price he would like best.

But I guess you should clarify (to yourself, and if you like, to us as well) what you need and what you want. Midway between D90 and D300 is ~1250$, midway between D300 and D700 is ~2000$. My personal point of view is that if you don't know whether you want to spend X dollars, or X*1.6 dollars, you have not considered the question accurately enough. Whatever your answer, you should be able to constrain your needs better than this before spending that amount of money.

Cheers

L.

March 10, 2010

I don't own the 24 and the 180, but I do own and use regularly the other primes you mention, and use them regularly. I would advise you against selling 35 and 50. First, all these lenses are nice on DX (I have a D200) but really shine on FX (D700) due to the strongly reduced effect of PF and LoCA. So when you jump on FX you would probably regret not having them anymore. Second, you are not going to get much money out of the 35/2 and 50/14 D, at least, not when compared to the cost of the 24-70 2.8. Third, the basic tenet of available light photography is:

"There is no substitute to fast glass"

I have taken out in clubs at night my D700 with just the 35/2 and the 50 1.4. The camera becomes light, small, you don't bump on things and people, one of the lenses is on, the other stays in a pocket. And I can assure you that 6400 ISO f1.4 is a very nice thing to have in a pub. Try doing this with a huge, heavy and very very visible 24-70 2.8.

I'm not saying you should not buy the zoom. I'm just saying that these small, inexpensive fast primes have a role to play, and that you would not get so much money out of them, so for me, to sell them would be a waste.

Cheers

L.

February 27, 2010

I guess the OP has a point. This thread prompted me to go looking back the POW of the past years, and I have seen things I like a lot, and things I don't like or in which I am not interested. This is only natural since photography is a very broad "art". But in general I have to say they tend to be "pretty" so to say, although I fail to see they would systematically qualify for postcards.

I think this can partly come from the need for a POW to appeal to a large audience, which, unavoidably, tends to favor easy to watch images which work immediately. The <a href="../photo/10584519">photo of mine</a> that was chosen is one of my favorite images, but it is not the one I personally like the best. Among recent photos, I personally like <a href="../photo/10562034">this one</a> more, for example. But it is obvious its impact is less obvious, it lacks the geometrical simplicity of the one chosen, and its appeal takes probably longer to be seen, and it is likely narrower.

This might also be partly due to the choice process. Now, I have no clue how the Elves do the actual choice. A lot of images are posted daily on PNet, and they have to do some sort of selection, they cannot watch them all. Whatever is the process they use to do such selection, it is bound to favor images that posses a quick impact, and possibly images that work well as thumbnails (ever noticed how such images also get more critiques?), because there are simply too many images to be seen to give chances to a photo which requires 10 minutes to be "understood" (I know it is a lousy term, but you get my point I hope).

L.

February 26, 2010

You get feedback by giving feedback. You will get anyway less feedback than you will give, I don't hide this to you. But you will discover that this is not the point: if you comment sincerely and in a detailed way the work of others ("Wow, nice picture!" does not qualify as detailed) you will discover that you will this way train your capability to look at images, to find what you like and what not of them, and to become conscious of what makes a good image. All this you need if you want to be able to tell somebody what in your opinion works, and what not, in his photo. As a result you will start looking at your images the same way, and you will start shooting in a more "conscious" way.

I actually learned at least as much from commenting others' work than by reading comments to my work.

Ciao

L.

February 25, 2010

With may be 61 point focus and a 24MP may be....... in addition to better ISO and FX.

</blockquote>

Very unlikely. The first unlikely thing is a new AF. New pro-grade AF have always been introduced in the D# model first. Most surely Nikon is now working on the AF module prototypes for the D4, but I think it is extremely unlikely they will launch a new AF in the D900 (let's call it this way).

The second unlikely thing is 24MP AND better high ISO. 18 MP and same high ISO is, I think, likely, assuming Nikon develops a sensor for the D900. If they use the current D3x 24 MP, you are not going to get D3 / D700 high ISO. the point is, nobody knows what they are going to do. And there is the distinct possibility that Nikon will do a D700s (D700 with D3s sensor) first.

I would say: you cite two things which could in principle benefit from higher MP (wildlife and landscape) and 3 which would surely benefit from better high ISO (wildlife, street and indoors). You don't cite video, which is surely going to be there, so I assume you don't care much. The next question is how big you print, and how often you shoot on a tripod because I assure you that the D3x 24 MP are not easy to exploit entirely, motion blur and slight focus errors become much more difficult to avoid. So there is little point in using a high resolution sensor if your technique and shooting style make it difficult for you to fully use the resolution. Also, unless you crop a lot and/or print frequently above A3, there is little point in going above 12 MP.

The D900 will most likely bring you the same body as the D700, with a higher resolution sensor, same (at best) high ISO, lower frame rate, same AF, and video. It will be 1000 $/euros more. It will be hard to come by before the summer. It will tax your lenses more heavily. And your computer.

The D700 is here now. It is perfectly tried and tested both mechanically and software-wise. It is 1000$/euro less. It has one of the best, not to say the best, AF on the market. Its high ISO capability is bested by the D3s alone. With the exception of resolution and lack of video, there is nothing in which it is not the best in its class. In particular, it is an exceptional PJ camera. There are a lot of photos to make between here and October.

Don't buy the latest and biggest, because it is a status that does not last. Buy what does what you need, because unless your need changes (real needs, not marketing induced), it will continue to do what you need. If six months ago you would have said "the D700 is nice but its resolution in not sufficient for my needs", then wait, don't buy it because the high resolution version is most likely coming. If you wanted it 6 months ago, then buy it now that it is cheap, and if you really want to go up to 3000$, probably there is a lens you need/want that can be bought with the difference.

Cheers

L.

February 20, 2010

Lex, Luca - thanks. All those special features are for special people with special needs!

</blockquote>

I don't know... <a href="../photo/10562034">This photo</a> , and <a href="../photo/10705592">this one</a> have been taken at 3200 ISO with my D700. The first one is taken at 1/15 sec, lens wide open. The second I don't recall right now. <a href="../photo/10660127">This one</a> , 1600 ISO f2.8 with an 85mm. I'm just an amateur street photographer, and none of these images was possible with the D200. I don't think I have special needs, my needs are quite usual for people shooting street, or sport, or wildlife. Of course, if you shoot still life in a studio with 7 strobes you don't need high ISO performance or VR. But you would probably appreciate a 24 MP camera, something I would, on the other hand, qualify as "special needs".

Then, there is the so-called point of diminishing return. When the difference is between "clean 800 ISO" and "clean 3200 ISO" I can assure you that for a whole lot of people this does make a significant difference. If it is between 6400 and 102000 ISO, of course much less people will need the improvement. Same for resolution or anything else.

For example, what pixel range is actually 'must have' for a good picture/print? What ISO range is 'required' for everyday photography? What focal length is used 'most' of the time?

</blockquote>

I understand your point, but unfortunately the answers are "it depends", "it depends", and "it depends". What is your everyday photography? this defines what your most used focal length is, and which camera quality you need to aim to. The first one (print) is probably the easiest. You print a perfect A3 print with 12 MP. Unless you have pretty large walls, this is probably the max an amateur will want to print. I personally actually dislike very large prints, and think that the most pleasant to look at are between A4 and A3, not in terms of quality of the print, but of viewing conditions: the larger a print is, the more difficult is to lit it properly, for example. I am perfectly satisfied of 10-12 MP. But again, as you see... it depends.

Ciao

L.

February 20, 2010

The one complaint that I hear about the 50mm f/1.8 as a portrait lens is that some people say it has bad bokah (the rendition of the out of focus background).

</blockquote>

Usually it is spelled "bokeh" ;-). But yes it is quite bad, the fact is, it is quite bad on both the 1.8 and the 1.4D. It is, they say, better on the 1.4G, but not great there either. The only 50mm I hear systematically praised for the bokeh is the Sigma 1.4, so if portrait is the main target, that should be the better choice, but it is big, and expensive.

On the OP question: you should prefer the 1.8 over the 1.4 for price, and that is it. Everything else is better on the 1.4D and even more on the G. Much better? I would say no, not life changing. But with the 1.4G around, you might perhaps find a 1.4D cheaper, or used in very good conditions: in this caqse I would go that way.

Ciao

L.

February 20, 2010

What you'd gain with a D700 would be about a stop of low-light or high ISO performance, the full angle of view the 50mm lens was designed for, and a little more DoF.

</blockquote>

Not only. I rarely see mentioned a fact that was readily apparent to me when I started using the D700: the main limits of fast primes (such as the 50 1.4) are usually not due to sharpness, since they are in general sharper than zooms (much true for WA below 35mm, on the other hand, and not so true when comparing to the latest and greatest pro zooms), but to purple fringing and longitudinal CA. Both these issues become more and more significant when you work at fast apertures, and can definitely impact an image more than some lack of sharpness.

Now, both these issues are almost totally independent from the distance from the center of the image, but on the other hand, LoCA fringes (and I guess PF as well) have a constant linear size on the focal plane, which means that at the same aperture, and printing at the same size, they will appear 1.5 times larger if the photo has been taken with a DX camera. Also, if you want to get a given DOF, you will need to open ~1 stop more on the DX camera, which makes PF and LoCA worse (and sharpness, for that matter). If instead you are shutter speed limited, given that a D700 has at least 1 stop noise advantage over the D90, you will need AGAIN to open 1 stop more on the DX camera.

Also, these same facts tell you that, while the D700 shows outer parts of the image circle where, sharpness wise, the lens will perform worse, it has also a much lower linear resolution on the focal plane, which largely compensates for this. And, both to reach a given DOF and to get a given shutter speed with a given noise level, you will be using the lens about 1 stop more closed on the D700 than on the D90, which again, compensates for the corners. Or you can use a faster shutter speed, which reduces motion blur risks.

In short, my finding is that practically I get better IQ from my lenses from the D700, and have a higher keeper rate. It is misleading to compare lenses on DX and FX at the same settings , one has to compare them at equivalent settings, this is, the ones you would use in the same real world situation.

Cheers

L.

February 19, 2010

No, really like to know why those things are so important these days?..

</blockquote>

Look at it this way: before the Wright brothers, I don't believe anybody ever complained about too strict controls in airports or too little leg space in economy class. A lot of people makes the wrong assumption that people used to shot that way because they wanted. In fact, they had to, because there was no alternative (or the quality of the alternative was bad). Now, you can shoot at 6400 ISO and get a clean file. It does not mean you have to, you don't have to take the plane to go to the grocery store. But if you have to change continent, the plane is noticeably better than swimming.

And you see: my grandparents did not really feel the need to go more than 25 km away from where they were born. I wonder why everybody is making all this fuss now about all these airplanes... after all, can't everybody just stay home?

L.

February 17, 2010

In my case, 67 over 148 in my gallery are in portrait orientation. There is a handful of square photos, the rest are landscape. So I'm pretty close to 50/50. On the other hand, I always have the feeling that I tend to more often shoot portrait. I shoot mostly street, which is probably one genres which tends to be very balanced from this point of view, given the great variety of framing needs.

Ciao

L.

February 16, 2010

I have a D200 and a D700. If you believe that in the change you just get better high ISO, you are wrong. In y experience:

<ul>

<li>you get MUCH better high iso. 2 stops, roughly, but even when the noise looks similar, color saturation and detail retention is better on the D700.</li>

<li>At any ISO, you get noticeably better DR. As per DXOmark, the D700 has at 800 ISO more or less the DR of the D200 at 100 ISO.</li>

<li>you get always better color separation.</li>

<li>you get always much better shadow detail. </li>

<li>most (FX) lenses behave better on the D700, especially fast primes, due to the lower pixel density: in fact, LoCA and purple fringing are much less visible.</li>

</ul>

Images from the D700 are simply better, easier to postproduce, more resilient to exposure errors, have better colors and appear "smoother", if you get my meaning. The difference IS significant, always, not only at high iso, not only in low light.

Now, mind you, I love my D200, it is quite competent, but the jump I got from the D700 is pretty visible. And I'm not even citing how much better the AF is, especially in low light and with fast lenses. I guess that also the mantra of "lenses over body", as any commonplace statement, is true most of the times, but not always. In this case you are comparing upgrading to a specialty lens, which after all gives you less than 1 stop advantage at one focal length, versus upgrading to a camera bo that gives you 2 stops advantage ALWAYS, plus bonuses at all ISO values.

And besides this, here in Germany the D700 body only is actually less expensive than the indicated price of the 24 1.4, and it is going to go down more in the next months. This is of course assuming that you already have lenses which work on FX: if you rely significantly on DX lenses now, then the total cost of the FX solution goes up.

L.

February 16, 2010

I just wanted to add that SLRgear has repeated the test they did with the Canon 50 1.4, this time with the <a href="http://www.slrgear.com/articles/variation_nikon50f14/nikon50f14.htm">Nikon 50 1.4 G</a> . Apart from the fact that the Nikkor appears vastly better than the Canon wide open (unless one is interested in having sharp only the central 10% of the frame) there is still some fairly sizable sample variation, less than in the Canon, but as they notice, possibly more visible since here corners at least try to be somewhat sharp...

I don't think the differences I see here are dramatic, I believe they would require side-by-side comparisons to be spotted... but again, you hear people debating this level of differences when choosing a lens. And this is a 50 mm prime, likely one of the easiest designs, few moving parts, relatively few lenses...

L.

February 14, 2010

yes, also the one I had noticed is back... weird. L.

February 14, 2010

This might be an over-reaction, but I lose nothing by not posting photos.

</blockquote>

Points of view. I would have lost a great deal of very useful and insightful comments had I never posted my images here. Had others never posted their images here, I would have lost a lot of very nice images, and all the learning I got from looking at them, from studying them, from commenting them trying to understand what worked and what not in these photos. My photography has vastly improved since I am on PNet.

Is there the risk that my images will be stolen? of course yes. I never caught any photo of mine reproduced without consent, I guess they are not good enough, or flashy enough, or eye candy enough... you decide. Surely the nice guy whose flickr account originated this thread would never steal my photos, given the tastes he seem to have.

Do I consider the risk of having my images taken acceptable, given the enjoyment and learning I get here? Absolutely yes.

Does this mean that, if I find one image of mine stolen on flickr, I would not report it? not at all. To accept the risk is one thing, to accept the fact is another. And notice I'm an amateur, so I'm not losing any revenue if somebody steals my photo. If one asks, I can perhaps give the photo for free, provided I get credit for it. But asking and giving credit is a very different thing from taking, and taking credit.

L.

February 14, 2010

I guess that, from the "measurement" point of view, at least these tests should be internally comparable, say, the Photozone test of the AF Nikon 50 1.4 on the D200 should be comparable with the one of the 50 1.8, or of the 24-70, made on the same camera, and the comparison should hold for any camera of the same format which does not dramatically exceed the resolution of the camera used. Which is after all what is most needed, since people should look at this when deciding which lens to buy... the presence of APS-C versus FF cameras of course makes the game more complex, because you need the lens to be tested on the format you are interested in.

This said, I wonder whether the REAL error bar that is never included (and it is understandable that it is so) is the sample variation. SLRgear tried recently to explore the issue <a href="http://www.slrgear.com/articles/variation_canon50f14/canon50f14.htm">testing 5 Canon 50 1.4</a> , and while all look really bad at 1.4, it is impressive by how much they differ. Now, nobody I believe has a clue how much this result is representative: the picture is consistent in the sense that the lens is poor at 1.4, sharpness-wise. But very often one hears lenses being compared on sharpness differences which are smaller than the variations one sees here.

L.

February 14, 2010

Now it appears that the photo I spotted before is no longer visible (at least, I have no permission to see the page). It appears the guy noticed and his gallery went straight from 14 pages to 2 on my iPhone... What a marvelous human being.

L.

February 14, 2010

And this one:

http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/33502065@N04/4098075756/

is a photo of Lev Daichik that was POTW in 2008...

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=5973439

The genius pumped up the saturation... I will write Lev to signal the fact.

L

February 13, 2010

Me too, I never turn off to change lenses, never did, on 6 different AF Nikon bodies, and I never had the smallest problem. I usually turn off the camera to change CF card or to put up and take away the battery grip, but I have forgotten now and then, and again, nothing happened. Same with flash (but I rarely use flash anyway).Basically, I shut off to change card because it is a habit, not because I am the least concerned of what would happen otherwise.

I would not give so much weight to what Nikon puts in the manuals: I believe it was on the D200 manual, where they were explaining how you actually take a picture, and there was a note "to perform this function, the camera should be turned on"...

Even not knowing what Joseph points out above: these cameras are sturdy things. Only a fool would design the circuits so that it is enough to take away a lens without shutting off to cook the CPU. It is obvious that somebody is going to do it, and it is going to happen soon, no matter how many times you write it in a manual. The week after the camera is on the market, their repair center would be flooded.

Ciao

L.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by acarodp