kyle_mcmahon

<p>AF-ON doesn't trigger VR because triggering VR remains with half-depressing the shutter.<br>

<br />I know it seems more complicated, but once you internalize it, it's like driving stick. You can just do it without thinking, and it allows you much more control over what's happening. After making the jump to decoupled focus activation, it's aggravating to go back to the default configuration.</p>

<p>There is a camera close to what the OP describes, its just not an SLR. It's the Leica M9 rangefinder. Minimal electronic controls and menus. Operates like Leica Ms have for decades. Only flaw is its prohibitively expensive for most of us.</p>

<p>While that is commendable coding practice, seems pointless to let the end user see that. Just my .02.</p>

<p>What's the deal with the A vs B firmware, I've never understood that. Why are there two?</p>

<p >It is my understanding that software manufacturers have to reverse-engineer most cameras' RAW file formats since camera manufacturers consider that information proprietary and do not fully document their RAW file formats. This is why some people advocate, for example, using Nikon Capture NX2 to squeeze the last bit of image quality out of a NEF file.<br>

Given that, how is it with cameras that produce native DNGs (ie Leica, Ricoh, Pentax, etc)? For example, if I imported a DNG out of one of these cameras into iPhoto/Aperture, would compatibility there be perfect given that Adobe has published information about DNG files, or is their still reverse-engineering that Apple has had to do to support these cameras RAW files? How about Lightroom?<br>

I'm mostly asking because I'm fond of Aperture, but dislike this whole reverse-engineering business because of proprietary formats. If Apple could interpret camera-native DNGs perfectly (unlike my current NEFs), it would be enough for me to consider a DNG-producing camera in the future.</p>

<p >Thanks.</p>

 

<p>My favorite way to use my D700 is with AI/AI-S lenses. I know it can't work for everyone, because some people need the flexibility of zooms or autofocus. But I just like the minimalism of carrying a small (relative to every other FX body so far, all of which have vertical grips) and a handful of lenses, one on camera, maybe one or two more in your pockets. No camera bag necessary. Over time, I've read enough reviews and internet talk to ferret out which of these old lenses have the best performance/price ratio. Sure, lenses like the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 are some of the most legendary Nikkors out there, even today, but they have prices to match. What interests me are the ones that have astonishing price/performance ratios. Some examples:</p>

<p>20/4 (AI only)<br>

24/2.8<br>

28/2.8 (close-focus AI-S version)<br>

50/1.8 (or 1.4, really, but considering how good the 1.8 is, I'll take the cheaper one)<br>

105/2.5<br>

200/4</p>

<p>I would just like to add my name to the (apparently sparsely-populated) column of those who actively do not want video in their DSLR. I consider feature creep, and the menus of my current, non-video DSLRs are bad enough as is.</p>

<p>I don't know if I'd say the D700 is a cult camera of the same caliber as, say, the F2, the M3, etc. I do dearly love mine because I view it as the true digital equivalent of the F100. The D100 simply wasn't mature enough, and even though the D200 improved quite a bit, I still disliked that DX screwed with my lens arsenal. The D700 remedied that.</p>

<p>Seeing as the D700's successor will most certainly have video, the D700 will likely be the only sans-grip FX Nikon without video--all things I explicitly want--ever. Thus, I expect to keep it for a very long time. When the day comes that I have to upgrade to something new (at which point, presumably, it will be impossible to buy a DSLR without video), I will do so--but begrudgingly.</p>

<p>I hate to be a negative Nancy, but as someone who shot baseball among other sports for my college paper, most any location in the stands is not going to give you the angles you want for good baseball photography. My opinion is to just leave the camera at home and enjoy the game, and find some little league / high school / college game to shoot.</p>

<p>Leslie's theory is applicable to lots of electronics. People often refer to it when talking about hard drive reliability.</p>

<p><em>Which year was the price that?</em></p>

<p>There is one in B&H's used store right now for $1,100. And you're right, it's probably too slow for Nikon to ever consider making in this day and age. But with FX ISO performance, I don't know if it would bother me as much. The autofocus would work well enough in daylight. And it could be a nature lens used on a tripod anytime, and you wouldn't need autofocus then. Really, the biggest advantage is getting that focal length at that price point and weight.</p>

<p>Nikon once made a 400mm f/5.6 AI-S. They sell used for about $1,000. I'd be interested in a 400mm f/5.6 AF-S. Even without VR. It would sort of be a poor man's daylight sports lens, if you will. If it could come in around the current 300mm f/4 AF-S' $1,500, that'd be great.</p>

<p>This Flickr feed is so fascinating. I've checked in on it every month or so since he was inaugurated. Can you imagine how cool it would be to have that job?</p>

<p>Also, I'm really impressed that, at least of the images I checked, he seems to be using manual exposure mode all the time. I don't know if I could work that fast. His camera must be an extension of his body at this point. I'd be using Program, or at least Aperture Priority, for sure.</p>

<p>In manual mode the camera certainly meters, it just doesn't set any exposure based on that information, it merely relays it to the user. The user then sets a <em>manual</em> exposure based on the meter reading.</p>

<p>Sorry, new to this:</p>

<div></div>

<p>My college photo club took a trip to Richmond, VA this past weekend, so I got to try my hand at street photography for the first time. I was expecting it to be hard, and it didn't disappoint! I'm not nearly bold enough to take photos of strangers generally, so I was way outside my comfort zone. But I do want to keep trying. Attached is my favorite from the excursion.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with the above; monopods aren't as important, and I don't think you need to spend a boatload.</p>

<p>For example, as a sports shooter, for me, the monopod functions purely to relieve my arms from the weight of the lens, and I'm not so much looking for low shutter speed stabilization out of it. If you want to get that out of a monopod, I'm probably not the person to give advice about that so I'll refrain.</p>

<p>I know this isn't directly relevant to the question at hand, but I can't keep quiet. It bothers me when people say the move to a D700 requires several thousands of dollars in lens investments. Not true. I use several AI-S primes with my D700, all of which I got used. The results are fantastic. In fact, I don't want anything newer, because I take them backpacking and I wouldn't want to give up the uniform 52mm filter ring, depth of field markings and small size and weight.</p>

<p>What people should say is this: <em>depending on what you shoot</em>, the D700 <em>may</em> require several thousand dollars in lens investments.</p>

<p>I have found a quirk. Let me quote the manual, page 59:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The DX Format Crop<br>

If Auto (the default setting) or On is selected for Custom Setting a6 (AF point illumination), the DX format crop is shown by a frame in the viewfinder when DX format is active. If Off is selected, the area outside the DX format crop is indicated by a transparent mask.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I tried this, and it is true. It is only transparent, however, not opaque. It's like a neutral density filter on the lens with a rectangle cut out of the middle. But I tried it with an FX lens, so I don't know if it would behave differently with a DX lens. I don't have any to test.<br>

If your D700 is doing something other than this transparent gray--not opaque--with anything other than this esoteric set of settings (why would you turn AF point illumination off?), then I don't believe you have a stock D700, and that the mod you readily admit has done something to affect your masking.<br>

Clearly, you are all hot and bothered by this for some reason, and your tone attacking several others who are skeptical of your claims is unwarranted.</p>

<p>It absolutely does not gray out. You just get a black line showing the DX frame. And I am running the latest firmware; updated it a couple weeks ago myself.</p>

<p>Thanks. I had thought about that--downsizing a 12mp image to 5mp rather than just shooting at 5mp would sort of have a built in noise-reduction property, right? Beyond what the FX sensor is already capable of.<br>

It's not really about cropping because I can't get close enough--an 80-200mm lens has more than adequate reach for basketball even on FX--it's just that I was wondering if being able to see action before it enters the capture area would be advantageous as far as staying on top of the action. In effect, I would be shooting with a camera that had a > 100 percent viewfinder.</p>

<p>Sure memory is cheap, but workflow time in a newspaper environment is not. So in that sense, a 5mp image does have a legitimate advantage over a 12mp image, though I get what you're saying about throwing away pixels. Also, I have lots of memory cards, but only one is the highest speed my camera can make use of, so the more pictures I could fit on that card, the better.</p>

<p>But I was more interested in how this would work from a practical, shooting standpoint rather than a spec, post processing perspective.</p>

<p>I have been shooting sports, primarily football and basketball, for my college newspaper for a few years with a D70s, but I recently got a D700, which I'm pretty excited to put through its paces over the next couple months in basketball photography, especially considering its high ISO and AF performance.<br>

One thought that crossed my mind, however, was intentionally using the camera in DX mode, even with my 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S. Does anyone else do this for sports? I was thinking that it might be advantageous to be able to see "outside" the DX frame in the viewfinder, so I can get a heads up when a player is about to enter the capture area, and could then zoom a bit closer yet not feel like the viewfinder is a blinder. Does that make sense? The DX outline pops up, so I'd be able to see what is being captured.<br>

The newspaper would still be more than fine with 5 megapixel images vs 12 (in fact, might be better off because they archive everything, even the duds). And I could fit way more images on my memory cards, something I'm anticipating doing because, after years of 2-3 fps, I'm excited to have 8fps with the grip.<br>

Does anyone have thoughts on this before I give it a trial? If it doesn't work I could of course switch back very easily. I had trouble finding info on anything like this online, but I know I can't be the first person to have had this thought.<br>

Thanks, Kyle</p>

<p>Though I suppose a 28-200mm is a possibility. I'm just skeptical of a zoom range that large.</p>

<p>Even though the answer is not what I wanted, thanks for that table, that's great. How had I not come across that before?</p>

<p>Thanks for all the help, guys. Looks like I'm going back to the drawing board to think with requirement of mine it would be the lesser evil to drop, or perhaps look for a different kit philosophy. After that, my lens hunt will begin anew.</p>