mervyn_wilmington

<p>Historically there have been cases of batteries overheating and causing major problems. However, it would be interesting to know what experience or knowledge that members have of that over recent years? There are certainly third party batteries that seem to have no record of such faults.</p>

<p>Update.</p> <p>A little over my original budget - but what is new in that - I've bitten the bullet.</p> <p>I've ordered a Fuji X-E2 with the 18-55 lens at what I think is a very good price directly from Fuji 'refurbished'. Professional and user reports/tests are very good, and I think (hope) it will meet my needs! Assuming it does, I shall have to save-up for the 55-200 lens...</p>

<p>Jochen - many thanks for your contribution.</p> <p>I don't intend to get a mirrorless system to replace my Nikon dslrs, but I certainly want something lighter that will produce first class images without all the weight to carry round. I am in my 73rd year and age and maladies are taking their toll!</p> <p>I have a 'wealth' of legacy lenses. Not only Nikon, but Canon, Minolta, Fuji, M42 etc. However, while I am not disregarding the possibility of using them, it is not a main purpose. I have spent sometime researching the use of legacy lenses though.</p> <p>I live in rural Yorkshire in the UK. Our nearest 'big' town is about 20 miles away. There used to be four good dealers there. There are now none. Even if I were to travel some distance, I suspect I might struggle to find one who is really 'hands-on' in relation to what you mention. I don't say that they don't exist, but they are few and far between. </p> <p>For what it is worth, I am drifting towards the Fuji X system.</p>

<p>Please can I put on record how very grateful I am to all contributors. I am certainly now more educated and informed. Whether I am nearer to taking a decision is another matter! As always, image quality is paramount, but there is also a need to take into account downsides in relation to models that provide first class iq.</p> <p>I am now far more aware of just how many models and variants there are. I am in the UK and there, perhaps, are not quite the same opportunities for used stock as in the US. However, I quite regularly buy from one or two very reliable dealers. No doubt I shall spend a good deal more time further considering what contributors have said, reading test reports etc., and browsing dealers' lists.</p> <p>Thank you all again. Further contributions are, of course, welcome!</p> <p>Can I just add this. I bought my first 'proper' camera in 1958. It was incredibly expensive for what you got. One factor that inevitably arises in relation to assessing cameras today is the cost, especially with the wide range available. All I can say is that there is much better value for money than there was in 1958!</p>

<p>Thanks for that Peter.</p> <p>I do print quite a few pics (often smallish sections), and usually at A4. Without being silly at trying to use high iso settings, I can usually print first class images with my D700/300. I'd like to think I could do the same with a good 4/3 or whatever.</p>

<p>Paul - that is very kind and helpful of you, but for some reason your pics won't open. There is a x icon in their place. I often look at pics on photo net, and can't recall this happening before.</p> <p>Have you gleaned what the performance is like at higher iso settings? That is where my 'little' digi compacts let themselves down.</p>

<p>I fear that, to an extent, I am asking for advice that has been sought by others. However, my question, in one respect, may be a little more specific than some.</p> <p>I presently mainly use a Nikon D700 and D300. I do not intend to leave those behind. I also have Panasonic compacts to 'keep in my pocket'. At intervals I ask myself the question whether I should try the mirrorless system, including the Panasonic and Olympus 4/3. Of course, I could read the latest test reports etc, and spend as much money as I could. I'm not sure I want to do that.</p> <p>What seems obvious is that this system is developing very rapidly, and much used equipment is coming onto the market, often at what seems to be very keen prices compared with what it was new only a couple of years ago: new model, price of old collapses. My impression is that quite a few users are upgrading. A friend has just acquired a GX7 because his son is already upgrading.</p> <p>The question in that context, ie 'fairly new' is what should I consider buying? Potential image quality in relation to a body is paramount. I recognise that 'the right bit of glass' at the front also has a bearing on that!</p> <p>Advice would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>Matthew, I have no doubt that what you say is true. However, dealers seem to declare when something has been a 'return'. Sometimes they add 'refurbished' or checked by manufacturer.</p> <p>Factory returns might have been involved in some cases at the Panasonic dealer I contacted, but I very much doubt it in relation to the Fuji one. I think this 'refurbished' or 'reconditioned' story may be more common that we realise.</p> <p>There used to be a store not too far from us that sold current professional level Black & Decker power tools. They were described as reconditioned. The discount on them was enormous. I went there to buy a circular saw. The man produced the model I wanted. It was in a plastic bag. To me, everything in the bag looked brand new. There was not a mark or sign of use anywhere. Nevertheless, I asked him whether it was likely to have a normal life expectancy. He said that about once a month they went to the regional wholesaler with a list of the power tools they wanted. The man there looked at the list and took boxed items off the shelf, took the tools out and put them into the plastic bags. He had no doubt they were brand new.</p> <p>A year or two later I wanted a professional level De Walt router. I went to a 'factory outlet' where the prices were remarkably low. It was claimed that tools were refurbished or reconditioned, I can't remember which. The router was produced. This was in its original box. There not a mark, scrape or scratch anywhere, and certainly no sign of repaint. I said to the man that it was obviously new. He looked at me but did not demur.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Whilst this may be a little off the exact topic, isn't there rather more to the concept of refurbished, at least in the UK?</p> <p>I have never bought a refurbished dslr, but over recent years I have bought five refurbished digital compacts. Two Nikon, two Panasonics, and a Fuji. All were 'distance' purchases. One of the Panasonics had very slight signs of use. The other four were totally immaculate.</p> <p>I didn't speak to the companies that sold the Nikons, but I contacted those for the Panasonics and the Fuji. They were remarkably open. The one that sold the Fuji said that they retailed hundreds of so-called refurbished cameras, not just Fuji ones. They would arrive at their store 'by the dozen' in original packing cases. They would take the cameras out of the individual boxes, crumple the instruction book a little and knock the box around so as to give the impression that the camera had been used. It seems that this was to disguise what was happening so as not to upset other dealers who were selling the same product 'new' and without the massive discount of the 'refurbished' ones.</p> <p>The company selling Panasonics gave a similar account, although occasionally they got batches that had been used. They said that I could always ask them to look through their stock for one that was clearly new.</p> <p>Make of it what you will.</p>

<p>I use a D700 and D300 - same batteries. I had four Nikon ones, but decided to buy some 3rd party a year or so ago. I looked on Amazon for those with extensive very good feedback, and bought four at a really favourable price - cheaper than one genuine Nikon. So far they have performed perfectly. Obviously longevity is another issue.</p> <p>Ironically, just after I got the 3rd party ones, I bought a used grip. It came with two genuine Nikon batteries. The dealer didn't have a charger to test them, so threw them in for free. They work perfectly. I now have more than enough batteries!</p>

<p>These days I almost always have a digital compact in my pocket, even when we go shopping. 'Surprise opportunities' can more readily be recorded. In the past, perhaps it was not so easy. I have missed many, but two very much stick in my mind.</p> <p>One of our sons was at Oxford University. We were visiting him and had been wandering round taking photographs of the colleges etc. We went into a pub for lunch and the Nikon slr had been put away in the bag with all its zips and straps.</p> <p>We finished lunch and went outside. Striding up the street, not ten yards away, was Bill and Chelsea Clinton with the lightest of escorts. Now if it had been an hour earlier when I had the camera round my neck...</p> <p>On another occasion many years ago, we were on the river at Durham. I had the Nikon but with only a short zoom. Some distance away, a helicopter appeared above the cathedral tower and winched a stretcher up. Sadly, someone had had a heart attack while climbing the steps, but it was a very dramatic scene. Now if I then had the little digital compact with vr and its very long zoom.</p>

<p>Tom, you ask what kind of f-stops I use. Well the answer is most of them, except f22. The fastest lens I have is f1.4 and it is true that I would not normally use that beyond f8. However, I have two macro lenses and f16 would not be uncommon. One is the Tokina 100mm that I also use more generally - it has the floating element. On one occasion I accidentally left it set at f16 for a while after doing close-up work. There was no evidence of dust problems.</p> <p>On some other lenses f11 and f16 would be used on occasions.</p> <p>Like other contributors, I take steps to minimise dust. I try not to change lenses in the field. When I change lenses I always remove the back cap from the 'new' lens and place the lens horizontally. I then remove the 'old' lens with the camera pointing downwards, fitting the 'new' one whilst it is in that position.</p> <p>I do not regularly clean glass unless there is obvious dust, but I do carefully attend to body and lens mounts to remove dust. I never, ever - even for seconds - leave a body without a lens or body cap.</p> <p>When I had the D70s, smaller apertures would not be unusual because at the time I had some lenses that demanded such for better performance.</p> <p>I can't tell you what apertures my son and daughter-in-law use. However, I have no reason to believe that they are small aperture fiends.</p>

<p>This is probably going to be famous last words...</p> <p>I bought my first Nikon dslr - a D70s - about 8 years ago. I gave it to my son and daughter-in-law a couple of years back. I now use a D700 (five years) and D300 (two years).</p> <p>I have about 10 lenses in active use. About half are primes. Three zooms are afd. I have taken at least 50k images.</p> <p>I have never had the need to clean a sensor, but within months of my son and daughter-in-law taking over the D70s they had dirt on sensor problems, although they have only one lens.</p> <p>As I say, probably famous last words...</p> <p> </p>

<p>In the UK D300s are now very reasonably priced. I mainly use a D700, but I have a D300 as back-up. However, I used it extensively one day over Christmas with the 16-85 vr lens for family pics. It is delightful to use. The results were more than satisfactory. It might die tomorrow, but I doubt it. It will probably go on for years, but my investment in cash terms is not that great anyway.</p> <p>If the results are what you say, and you paid a reasonable price, what is the worry? 71k is not that huge. I have to say though that I always ask the dealer what the shutter count is before I buy a used body. Could you have bought something else for the same money that overall would have proved better in real terms, as opposed to fanciful? </p>

<p>I have an Epson XP-850 printer/scanner. It produces superb copies of monochrome and colour prints. However, the model is fairly expensive compared to some others. So is the ink.<br> Sometimes I use a camera, either a D700 with a macro lens, or a Fuji digital compact on the macro setting. The latter performs very well indeed. Others have identified problems with lighting and keeping the print flat. Although I have a proper copy stand, I don't usually resort to it. I put a 'lowish' table under a window on a grey day, ie even light, and stand on the room side. If the print is not flat, I hold it down with blobs of blue tack, or invisible tape at the edges.<br> Standing over the table/print, it is not difficult to get the image square, but there is no problem in taking several shots and selecting the best one. Since the light is coming from the other direction, there are not shadow issues. I usually take the picture beyond the edges of the print. I then import into Lightroom. That gives the opportunity to size the copy, adjust contrast and colour, etc. Indeed, I have substantially improved on some originals without making them look artificial.</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe: if you were to think about it, it is not so much a matter of whether filter technology has moved on, although it may have. It is a matter of what manufacturers might now be producing. Some down the list may well have improved quality. Others may have changed production methods with detrimental effects. Was there not that possible issue a year or two ago with a major manufacturer regarding some of their filters?</p> <p>Of course, other makes or labels may have come to the market. Were the tests as recent as five years ago?</p>

<p>I was already aware of the tests referred to by Georges and Rodeo Joe. Unless it has been properly updated by further tests on the listed filters, is it not now a little antique? That said, I tend to use Hoya HMC or B+W.</p>

<p>Another vote for the 28-105. I have two. I can't see any quality difference between them: they are both very good. If anything, I find the contrast can be a little low, but easily dealt with. I have a 35-70 f2.8 as a walkabout lens, but the range is obviously restricted. The 28-105 is often more useful. Now if there were a vr version...</p>

<p>This sort of question concerning these two cameras has certainly been bounced around more than once.</p> <p>However, if it is to be bounced again, it is not better to deal with the issue in the abstract, ie which might be the better model assuming both were in good working order, rather than deal with whether one camera or the other that the OP had his eye on might be a better bet for him.</p>

<p>I should have mentioned in my earlier posting that I do have the Tokina 100mm f2.8 atx macro. Whilst I cannot compare it with any of the Nikons referred to, I can say it provides truly excellent images both for macro and portrait work. The defining power is such that some ladies might want the final product softening a little.</p> <p>My lens, in near mint condition, cost £200 here in the UK</p>

<p>I found this thread very interesting. I have a d700 and D300. I also have several Nikon manual lenses 'left-over' from my film days, including the 70-150: super image quality. The problem is that age/eyesight/glasses do not lend themselves to manual lenses. I recently passed over a very nice 105mm f2.5 because of that. The price was really very little and with a warranty. Perhaps I should have tried it.</p> <p>One of our sons recently bought a Canon 85mm f1.2. A great deal of money, but what stunning image quality, even at full aperture.</p>

<p>I've just bought a Rolleiflex with the f3.5 planar. It is a 'distance' transaction and the camera should be with me tomorrow.</p> <p>It is at bargain price because according to the (very reputable) dealer there is very slight delamination at the edge of the taking lens. It is on 14 days approval and 6 months warranty. Hence, other than cost of return postage, I am at no risk. Apart from some rubbing of the paintwork, I am told the camera is otherwise in good condition and is complete with case and lens hood.</p> <p>One of my Hasselblad lenses has very slight edge delamination, but it has never appeared to make any difference to image quality. However, I thought it worth asking forum members whether they had experience of this problem on a planar and the consequences.</p>

<p>I am most grateful for the help and advice.</p> <p>It was because material elsewhere seemed confusing that I posted here. From several years' experience, I know there is a high standard of reliability on this forum, but nothing is necessarily perfect! I knew from memory that there had been 'issues and discussions' about suitability of cards, and when I looked at comments and feedback elsewhere there seemed to be possible glitches. However, as has been properly said, whether those were justified or because of matters not relating to the card itself, one can only guess.</p> <p>My D700 is 1.02: I think there is no risk in proceeding with the purchase. However, one of our sons, who uses pro level equipment by another manufacturer (something to do with guns), believes that Lexar pro cards might have the edge. But can I trust his judgment when he chooses to use this other equipment!?</p> <p>Thank you again.</p>

<p>RJ - thanks for that. I've seen these cards at a very good price from a reputable dealer - hence my interest!</p>

<p>There has been some discussion about suitability of cards as approved by Nikon for the D700.</p> <p>To date, I have only used up to 16gb cards. Have D700 users had any problems with this card, please? Questions have been raised in some consumer feedback.</p>