bms

September 11, 2017

Tom, still have my M6, won't give that away (though its lacking instant gratification) :)

September 11, 2017

I'll fess up first - I have not posted here in years. Got busy with family and just found my way back of taking anything but baby pictures.... :)

Also the website has changed, and either its the PC I am on or the search function is somewhat screwy, so I'll apologize for any redundancy.

Taking some small aperture pictures with my trusted M9, unfortunately I did notice some corrosion (why would I be spared?) and it seems I got it in for replacement just before the deadline (BTW, wait now is 20 weeks....). That being said, I had considered selling the M9, while keeping my old M6 in the past, never being 100% happy with the digital M experience. Now there is the option of 'upgrading' to an SL... reading online opinions vary from it being the best things since sliced bread to obsolete paperweight. Benefit to me would be to keep using my M glass, unloading maybe my Nikon SLR and Olympus system (yes, I had Gear Acquisition Syndrome at some point, but got rid of most of my Nikon glass) , being able to use all sorts of lenses, incl. some R, and if I ever win the lottery to have a pristine set of native SL AF-lenses. The trade in equates to almost $3,000 in trade in value, which seems more than I would get on the e-marketplace, and much less hassle. I tried out an SL in a Leica store before, the EVF is great, the weight not too bad in my hands, though I did not have much time with it.

Has anyone gone that route, or have first hand experience with both systems? Or just tell me that I am nuts...

March 17, 2014

".... external Speedlights and more."

I think the addition of the V's being able to use Nikon's CLS would be great.... Alas, I don't think it will happen, so not sure

what they mean by that?

March 16, 2014

I think it is an interesting camera - I had the V1 for a while and its high speed capabilities were neat, but it also had may shortcomings, some of them were addressed in the V2. Is it overpriced? yes. But that is what we have to come to expect from Nikon (see the Df, Coolpix A). It's unfortunate because they make great cameras, but it prices many people out of the market that otherwise would buy the camera, and I am beginning to think that Nikon may not be able to do it cheaper. At least for DSLR they can count on lens sales, but who REALLY is going to buy a lens other than the kit lens for their V/J Nikon 1, like a $1000 70-300? That keeps production runs small and thus prices even higher.

I feel that apart from DSLRs, much of the camera market has fractured into "specialized" cameras that do certain things well and others not. Leica's Monochrom is certainly top of that list, the OM-Ds are great for stills but video is so so, Fuji makes great ILCs but the APS-C sensor make the lenses bigger even if their X-A1 models is pretty small body wise etc. Maybe some day someone will come up with the smallest, fastest, best ISO, full frame camera, but I won't hold my breath.

The V3 has jumped to #4 on Amazon's best seller list for compact system cameras, so someone is buying....

January 22, 2014

Great shots everyone! Glad y'all still here. Posting again after a long absence. Our little un' has grown but still takes up

must my free time (as he should).<div></div>

December 13, 2013

Andrew, thanks, and sorry to hear about your troubles in LV. It was 32 (FAHRENHEIT) and below when I was there. I went for work, I am not much of a fan of the city's 'amenities'. The architecture is grotesque (I actually used the fisheye quite a bit, thinking it fits the distorted reality of the place).

I not entirely clear what you mean with aperture, but I am guessing the answer is NO. I did not use my D800 for video when I had one, nor did I use live view much. As far as I can see the Df sets the aperture when you enter live view (say f2). if you CHANGE the aperture when in live view (say to f8), it will take the picture at the set aperture (f8) and AFTER the shot will leave the aperture where it has been dialed in (f8). The DOF preview button has NO function in live view. Shame really, if even the D5300 can do it. I wonder though if that is a software rather than a hardware issue.

The shutter adjustment does not reset itself UNLESS you change the shutter speed on the top dial, in which case it does back to +/- 0 (i.e. set to 1/125, you change it to 1/100, you then dial in 1/250 and its 1/250, not 200).

December 12, 2013

Addendum: the mention shutter speed function is called "Easy Shutter Speed Shift" and is activated in the menu f11. You can assign the function to the front or back wheel, though the back one is the default and feels more natural to me.

December 12, 2013

A lot of you guys really need to try shooting the Df for a week or two. Some of the comments are from another planet.

You can set apertures in 1/3 steps and also the same with shutter speed. The Df has a myriad of alternative ways of setting it up and which to prefer is up to each user [...]

</blockquote>

Agree with Bjorn. This also works in Shutter priority. I think people complaining about the "1 stop" limitation of the shutter speed wheel do not understand or know about this function. I spent the last few days shooting the Df several hours a day. I actually think the solution of setting it in manual and then being able to quickly adjust the shutter speed to he light condition while looking through the viewfinder is a neat feature. I actually have shot more in Manual mode than ever (my work took me to Las Vegas and as I was busy until 5 PM each day, I mainly shot at night. Being able to use high ISO certainly came in handy, too)... And yeah, Bjorn, please don't leave...

December 4, 2013

Not sure whether there are other advantages to setting lens data

</blockquote>

Not that this would affect IQ, but it also puts the right number for focal length and aperture into the EXIF data...

December 3, 2013

Nikon is essentially throwing in the J1 body almost for free.

</blockquote>

I would venture to say they may be selling it under production cost, if the store still gets a cut.

If you consider that the 10-30 is listed for $187, you get the camera for $32! On the J1/10-30/30-110 combo for $319, you'll "make" $115 and get the camera for free... :)

December 3, 2013

Benjamin: I'd missed the new packaging.

</blockquote>

Andrew... I got the all black verson, maybe the silver one comes in silver cardboard? Now THAT would make for a contrast with gold!

I realized, holding the camera a little flimsy, specially with bigger lenses, has not enough grip on the camera, and my little finger hanging below the camera feel funny.

</blockquote>

Others, too, have noted that bigger lenses are not well balanced, and yes, the grip makes it more difficult. This camera wants to be shot with primes and smaller zooms... I guess that this was intended. I got rid off my larger zooms with my D800, as I am very happy with a"walk around zoom" for my Oly. If I still had a repertoire of zooms, I would probably not have considered the Df. Then again, if you can shell out for a 200-400mm or the like, a D610 may be a minor expense :)

It is a big mistake from Nikon who design a camera where an optional, additional extension, battery grip is not available and almost impossible to create one, because the bottom design, specially the not logically placement of the memory card, next to the battery under the same battery door

</blockquote>

I agree that this is one of the more annoying features, it's so "point and shooty". I do not mind so much the sole card slot, but here I guess function followed form, instead of vice versa

December 3, 2013

Ralph,

No doubt this is not meant for pros.... But enthusiasts.... The packaging design alone actually is pretty "fancy", black vs

the usual gold.... Maybe taken from the Leica play book to make you feel better about your purchase expense :)

December 2, 2013

So I got the Df today and so far only used it briefly.

Here are my first impression: 1) it is very light! The first feeling was actually one of disappointment. It does not "feel" like a solid Pro body. More like a pro-sumer DX camera. I mounted my old 28 mm f2 Ai-S and the weight pretty much doubled. I think this is an illusion though, it overall solidly built , as far as I can tell. 2) The disappointment makes room for more affection when you shoot it. Though Shun is right, the grip is small-ish. Holding in one handed is not that comfortable. 3) Preliminary review of some random images at ISO 6400 confirms darn good low light performance - I don't have the D800 anymore for comparison, but I downloaded the JPGs from dpreview and down-sampled the D800 to the Df size. The Df seems to have a slight edge, though probably insignificant in practice. 4) Manual focus using the "dot" seems easy to do even in low light (tried 28, 50 and 105 mm). I cannot comment on the viewfinder in comparison with other FX cameras... it certainly is nice, though. 5) The power button causes ambivalence - it takes effort to switch it on and off, which can be good or bad. Similarly, the mechanism to open the battery compartment requires turning a little lever, which makes it more secure AND cumbersome. 6) The quiet mode is... quiet. On par or quieter with the D7000 (but lower in frequency) 7) I never have used the new 50 f1.8 G, but the 'special edition' certainly is no pro lens. The manual focus ring seems dampened, certainly more than the 85 mm f1.4 AF-S (my only other AF-S prime). After some initial apprehension.... this is a camera you like or you don't. For me it is a like so far, but it has some quirks. It certainly is different as far as full frame cameras go. I will certainly test it more.

I leave you with a really random "test shots" from my house.... all shot with Df, 28mm f2.8 at f2.8, ISO 6400, hand held; NOT claiming any validity or reproducibility (these are RAW images processed in camera, so really they are JPGs, with some noise reduction applied)

100% crop <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17617977-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="600" />

December 1, 2013

I appreciate Illka's and Shun's for their reviews, too, forgot to say that.

Benjamin: A lot was discussing what we know and what we wanted to know. I think we've been remarkably information-dense, by internet standards.

</blockquote>

I have to agree, did not mean to diss the whole conversation, some of those comments have informed my decision.

I guess I'd feel better if Nikon hadn't put one of their shortest-life (rated) shutters in the Df!

</blockquote>

It's been rated for 150,000 actutations AFAIK.... I don't think I have come close on any camera. I do not think many pros will make this their primary shooter.

Oliver, having 24MP on the entry-level D3200 is certainly marketing nonsense, so is having 41MP (or whatever) on some mobile phone camera, and not many people can take advantage of 36MP from the D800.

Put an old lens on a 36MP camera, and you can always limit your print or display size to cover up the flaws. Limit your prints to 12x18 inches or less or downsize your digital files.

</blockquote>

I remember many people "bitching" about 36 MP when the D800 came out. 36 MP and the focus issues (mine went back to Nikon twice) was certainly no fun. Then again, I could have just downsized and stopped pixel peaking.

November 30, 2013

Shun,

Benjamin, there is a lot one can tell solely based on the specifications and images showing the features (and the lack of certain features) of a product.

</blockquote>

No argument - you can tell a lot from the feature set. That's why I pre-ordered my D800 before it hit the shelves (none hit the shelves where I live, anyway). I am 6'5", I have no doubt that the Df will be a bit undersized - then again, I no longer shoot any gigs where I shoot a camera for hours. The OM-D series is even smaller and I feel comfortable using it.

My statement meant to reflect that fact that I do not remember any recent Nikon camera eliciting such a busy discussion... even before the release date.

I don't need to actually use a Df to know that it is a boutique camera that is going to appeal to a fairly small group of customers

</blockquote>

I may hate the camera once I use it - who knows. And I think - as stated - that it will likely be a 'flop', or not very profitable for Nikon.... and I fully profess to buying it in part because it appeals to me on an emotional level.

November 30, 2013

I find it interesting - almost 600 comments, most of them before anyone handled the camera.... I guess mostly from people who don't like it. Also, this must be the only Nikon pro body that was available on the release date... this camera will likely be a somewhat of a flop.... maybe it will receive cult status when it's out of production :)

Maybe I am just susceptible to marketing, but I, for one, have made another 180 turn. After I had cancelled my previous pre-order, I decided that I wanted to see for myself and my Df will arrive Monday. A few months ago I had sold my D800 and most zoom lenses, but kept some primes. While the D800 was more than I needed (I did not shoot video once with it and never printed large), I think the Df will suit me well. 16 MP is plenty for my purposes, the capability of the D4 sensor are attractive, and I am now old enough so that the 'retro' look suits me :) Or maybe I am just a wanna be hipster. I will report back...

I think people who buy the Df are making a conscious decision not to buy into the latest and greatest hype.... and maybe happy longer with their choice, as the camera is already "out of date" (until the Df2Dfx/Dfs comes out, which may never happen)

November 5, 2013

Reading all the pros and mostly cons, and thinking about this more I think that while the camera may have some merits, the price is just

ridiculous. Preorder will get cancelled.... I'd rather add to my m4/3 arsenal, or even better, go on a nice photo trip....

November 5, 2013

But don't real hispters shoot with like a beat up leica m2 and rolleicords:)

</blockquote>

True, Leslie, but maybe they'll just put a $5 pinhole on it :)

Was initially somewhat excited about it... though I divested from Nikon in the past year, I miss my FX sometimes.... I also kept a few lenses, including some Ai....

Then I look at my Oly OM-D E-M1 that arrived 4 days ago and ask myself..... why? The EM-1 looks 'retro" but is infinitely a modern camera and more customizable. Granted, it is not FX, but then again I am not a pro and DOF on my 75 f1.8 is good enough for my baby and cat :)

I am sure many people will be happy with it. I will still keep my preoder in the queue at B&H just in case I change my mind... it's not like that camera will be available anytime soon (though I don't expcet Leica M kind of delays, either)

October 18, 2013

The main difference is this: while there were 6 Nikon pro film cameras between 1956 and 2013, how many improvments in film were there?

</blockquote>

Exactly. But we are dealing with two different animals here.

Today's digital camera's are great, but recent developments have been nothing short of amazing, IMO. I bought my first digital cam, an compact Olympus, in 2001 wit 2.1 MP. This was 100% more than my wife's 1+ MP Sony bought around the same time. A decade later we see affordable 20 MP compact cameras that make the old Oly seem like horse carriage compared to race car.

While MP seems to have (temporarily) stabilized ~ 16 to 20 MP for most cameras, they have become faster, smaller and better at high ISO. Do we need all these new features? Probably not in 99% of cases... most of my favorite images now come from my 'low tech' Leica, which is now really dated .... however, while I have almost cured my GAS and sold much of the stuff I don't need, when a new camera comes out, sometimes the hype gets the better of me. It's only human.

Ironically, while I printed many photos in 2001, I now mostly post them online. So one could make the argument I do not need much more then 2 MP (I realize there have been more important advances than MP, too).

September 26, 2013

It seems expensive to build a dedicated digital Nikonos that will get out of date after a relatively short while. The housing approach seems to work better (...) It is not exactly cheap to buy a new housing every few years.

</blockquote>

Exactly! I have gone through several iterations of underwater equipment. Good housings are usually as or more expensive than the camera (unless you go FX) and this is exactly why a digital Nikonos in a CX format may sell (relatively) well - image quality will be better than compacts (and many use 1/1.7" sensor cameras for underwater) and if the price stays reasonable, it will be far cheaper to upgrade the cameras body and keep the lenses than buy a new housing and camera.

I pre-ordered the AW1 thinking it may be useful on shallower second dives.... and then cancelled, because 49 ft is just a bit too shallow. I wonder what it would have taken to go to 60 ft or maybe even 100ft.... and I am waiting for the AW2, and hopefully a wide angle (6-11mm) lens...

June 24, 2013

Well, they are waiting on their manufactures to make enough Leica Ms, so Customer Service Reps have to do something. When I bought my D-Lux4, way back, the M8 was on shelves and I did not get nay emails...... :)

June 21, 2013

I look forward to DPReview's opinion.

</blockquote>

Hope they test it....

June 21, 2013

It is manifestly not a continuous-tone process--and never was

</blockquote>

Well, as you explained that is true for film, too, but I would wonder especially about the laser printed fiber paper, which is not a true conversion from digital back to analogue, it seems, though I think if you are not a grain/pixel peeper, both methods appear to be continuous to the eye

June 18, 2013

They are two mediums that I have used for a very long time, and I will continue to compare differences as I continue to use both. That way, I get better results with each.

</blockquote>

Brian, I meant no offense - my maybe not so well put statement was referring to the seemingly endless discussion of one being somehow "better" than the other. I mostly shoot digital but though I came back to film after it had already started its decline, using it has undoubtedly taught me a lot. For me they are more like different media. I don't think many painters will endlessly ague if oil is better than water color or vice versa.

June 18, 2013

(yawn) When are people stop comparing digital and film?

Digital does not have the "Toe" and "Heel" of film, easy to blow highlights and miss shadows

</blockquote>

While that is true, IMO, if you scan film, much will depend on scanning and post-processing. You can "blow" highlight and "block" shadows at each step. And then of course it will be paramount how, with what and on what you print it. While the choices for a completely analogue process seem to become more and more limited, there are so many option (and hence variations) for digital output.

I, for one, don't think that digital looks "antiseptic" per se. That being said, unfortunately I have not had the chance to play with the Monochrom, but I doubt it is an "replacement" for film, just a different option. If you really need to choose between film and digital, a better comparison would be a good darkroom print vs a good inkjet print from the Monochrom. I am pretty sure they will look different, but each pleasing in their own way.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by bms