robin_barnes

<p>TOM YOU ARE A GENIUS! Your suggestion has worked brilliantly! Many thanks indeed!<br /> I selotaped a small piece of grey card (same colour as the slide mount) across the bottom of the target to cover the barcode - using my light box so that I could be sure it was in the right place. I tried auto calibration first but for some reason this got the frame lines in the wrong place and wouldn't proceed any further so I did it manually.<br /> Instead of the message I got before it just said that it couldn't find the necessary reference file without specifying a number. I opened the file which had the same number as my target that I had downloaded from Sliverfast's website, clicked the start button and the calibration was done in a couple of seconds.<br /> I then did a test scan using the same slide as before (a shot of the bay at Menton in the south of France) and I can see that the result is definitely better than the one I got using the "built-in" Kodachrome profile. The white sides of buildings are "white" rather than slightly yellow and the green of the leaves on the trees is more natural as is the blue of the sea.<br /> I can now look forward to spending the remaining winter evenings scanning my archive.<br /> Thanks again,<br /> Robin</p>

<p>Tom - the fact that you have actually done it cheers me up! How did you cover the barcode? I was thinking of putting a small piece of black card into the corner of the slide holder above the target to just cover the code.<br>

Having looked at your first post again I think I misunderstood what you said (it was very late and I had had a tough day!). I now think that you saying that the software will ask me to type in the number of the required reference file - is that right? At the moment it is in the same folder as all the files that were on the disc but I guess I could put it in a new folder on its own if all the prompt requires is a location. <br>

As yet I have heard nothing more from Silverfast support.<br>

As you are clearly experienced in using these targets I wonder what you think of the results they produce. As you will know Silverfast Ai Studio has a "built-in" Kodachrome setting which is available to me. I did a test scanning a Kodachrome slide using first the E6 profile that was set up when I calibrated the scanner using the slide that came with it and then using the Kodachrome setting. The first scan, unsurprisingly, had a blue cast but the second one didn't. In fact it looked pretty good and I wondered how much additional improvement I will actually see using a profile generated by a special Kodachrome target. <br>

Thanks again,<br>

Robin</p>

<p>No Tom I haven't got it sorted out yet. However I have now heard from Silverfast support in Germany (I live in the UK) and they advised me to try calibrating manually rather than using the automated facility - this didn't work either. I am waiting for them to get back to me with other ideas. <br>

Thank you for your suggestion that I cover the barcode. It is certainly worth a try but I am not sure that it will work because I think Silverfast needs the barcode to identify the associated reference file that it has to download - there are a lot of different ones for Kodachrome depending, apparently, on how and when the target was made.<br>

I downloaded the file which has the same reference number - E100101.txt - as my target but the problem is that the error message says that it could not download a file with a different reference number - E002101.txt - which is not shown in the list of downloadable files on Silverfast's website. I now wonder if the problem is that the barcode on my target has been printed incorrectly causing the software to search for a reference file that does not actually exist! <br>

Robin</p>

<p>I am looking for something small and light that I can slip into my shirt or trouser pocket and (almost) forget about it. The G1X is bigger, 2.5 times heavier than the S95 and, currently, 3 times the price! <br>

Thank you for your replies - from what you have said I think the S95 will meet my requirements more that satisfactorily.</p>

<p>I am thinking about buying a compact camera (probably a Canon S95 now that the price has dropped following the release of the S100) not to replace my Nikon DSLR but so that I can have something small and light enough to carry around with me most of the time. <br /> I was wondering how large a print (of good quality) can be made from a file produced by one of these cameras assuming that you stick to low ISO values (i.e. ISO 100 or 200) and use the highest quality settings?</p>

<p>Thank you for your reply Edward. There doesn't seem to be a way in which I can specify the location of the file I need so I searched the Silverfast site for it again but without success. I did find the folder on my HD where Silverfast has put all the reference files from the CD but as barcodes like the ones on my two target slides not in the form E...txt.<br>

So I downloaded the file from the IT8 Target section of Slverfast's site which has the same barcode as my Kodachrome target again and put it in the same folder as the other barcode files.<br>

I then tried to calibrate the scanner but just got the "can't download reference file" message again. <br>

I have tried to ask the same question on LaserSoft's Silverfast forum as it seemed the obvious place to start as others may have had the same problem in the past. However the Moderator stopped my question from being posted and sent me an email saying he had done this because the forum is not intended for individual technical support. He said a member of the their support team would email me but that was almost a week ago and I have heard nothing from them since then. Consequently I have been seeing if I can get help from elsewhere. </p>

<p>I have a Plustek 7600i scanner which came with Silverfast Ai Studio (version 6.6.Or6) software and am currently learning how to use it. As all of my slides are on Kodachrome I also bought one of Silverfast's Kodachrome calibration targets. My computer is an Intel iMac running under OSX 10.4.11.<br>

Calibrating for general use, using the target which came with the scanner and the automated calibration facility, worked fine but when I tried to do this with the Kodachrome target I encountered a problem. The following message appeared:-<br>

"The reference file E002101.txt could not be downloaded automatically. It is on the Silverfast CD or website"<br>

As far as I can tell it isn't on the CD (as the reference file for the general use target must have been) so I tried to find it on Silverfast's website. I couldn't find this file as such but I did find a page showing reference files to download listed by barcodes. So I downloaded the one which has the same barcode as my Kodachrome target slide. <br>

I then tried to calibrate the scanner but got the above message again. Can someone help please?</p>

 

<p>Andy, as you imply, not a lot! Certainly not enough to make me trade in my D3100. A little more resolution and a bit better high ISO performance, high resolution (same as the D7000) screen which swivels, external mic socket being the main differences. Still if I were buying now I think that that would be enough to cause me to choose the D5100. </p>

<p>I bought a D3100 rather than the D7000 because I wanted a lightweight camera. I am very happy with it although, to be honest, had the D5100 been available at the time I would probably have got one of them instead - better sensor and only slightly heavier. </p>

<p>Well now, when I started this thread I expected to get my usual 6-10 replies but I see that there are now over 60 (albeit a couple of them are mine) and I've made it into the active threads department for the very first time! This is exciting - thank you gentlemen! I don't think there are any ladies present but if I'm mistaken my thanks to you as well.</p>

<p>I'd like to correct a misunderstanding - Shun the primary reason that I would like a lightweight FX camera is not so that I can use my old manual FX lenses again. It is so that I can enjoy the benefits and advantages that FX offers over DX in comfort when I am out and about, walking and traveling. However I do have the added incentive that others who have invested heavily in DX equipment do not - i.e. I already own half a dozen FX lenses. I know that you take the view that these will not perform well on an FX DSLR but opinions on this vary and I have certainly seen posts on the Internet from those who use two of the ones I have (the 50mm f2 and E Series 75-150mm zoom) who say that the results are first rate. However in order to have the lightweight walking kit I desire (currently I use my D3100 with a 16-85mm zoom for this) I would add a modern FX zoom - perhaps the 24-120mm VR. A DFE2/24-120mm combination would be a bit heavier than a D3100/16-85mm one but still almost half a Kilo less than one involving a D700.</p>

<p>So who would buy a DFE2 other than amateurs with similar needs to myself? Well I suspect that a lot of professionals who currently use other FX Nikons would want add one to their kit to cover those situations when a light and less obtrusive camera would be more appropriate and/or to have it as a backup camera - I am assuming here that it would be somewhat cheaper and less well specified than the D700 and its successors.</p>

<p>Would that be enough to make it worthwhile for Nikon to manufacture a DFE2 assuming that it's technically possible? Frankly I don't know but having just had a look at Nikon's website something else became apparent to me. I was surprised to see that while Nikon makes just 18 DX lenses it makes 49 FX ones. OK so some of the FX ones can be used on DX cameras (allowing for the 1.5 crop factor) but this suggests that Nikon is devoting more resources to developing FX lenses than DX ones. Introducing a DFE2 would be advantageous because it would increase the number of FX lenses sold.</p>

<p>I see that Nikon Rumors is predicting that the successor to the D700 will be announced later this month and it will have a 36 megapixel sensor! If this proves to be correct it will be interesting to see if Nikon has managed to repeat what it did with the D7000 and increase the megapixels while also improving low light performance relative to it's predecessor! With a jump of 24 megapixels that seems like a tall order! Anyway no doubt it will be built like JDM's tank so, sadly, I will not be buying one.</p>

<p>A full frame DSLR of similar weight to an FE2 (lets call it a DFE2) would be almost half a kilo lighter than the lightest FF option currently available - i.e the D700. It wouldn't matter which lens you put on a DFE2 the combination would still weigh about half a kilo less than a D700 with the same lens. For me, at least, not having to carry that extra 500gms around would be very welcome. Clearly it would be very nice if Nikon decided to make some lighter FX lenses as well as a DFE2 but I can't agree that, without this, saving weight on the camera body would be without merit.<br>

<br /> My thanks to you all for responding to my question.</p>

<p>It would seem then that there may be a few technical issues to address but I have no doubt that such a camera would prove to be popular (three of us on this thread would buy one for a start!) and not just with amateurs. The smallest and lightest film system was the Olympus OM and a lot of professionals chose to use that including, here in the UK, David Bailey and the late Patrick Lichfield.</p>

<p>I like small, light cameras and for the 25+ years that I used film I had a pair of Nikon FE2s - still have them in fact. My first DSLR was a D40x which I upgraded last year to a D3100. I would have liked to have the additional features that the D7000 offers but at 235gms more than the D3100 it felt just that bit too heavy when I tried it out at the store. <br /> What I would really like is a full frame DSLR (my old manual primes are resting in the cupboard waiting for the day that one appears!) but at 995gm a D700 is out of the question. So are there any good technical reasons why Nikon couldn't make an FX camera of a similar size and weight (550gm) to the FE2?</p>

<p>Unfortunately you cannot use the ML-L3 wireless remote with the D3100 - you have to use the cord referred to by Marc. This is a rather disappointing step backwards in specification from the D3100's predecessors like the D40x.</p>

<p>Hector - the D5100 cannot act as a flash commander. To get this facility you need to attach a flash gun (SB 900, 800 or 700) to it which then acts as commander. Alternatively you can use an SU-800 control unit.<br>

On my D3100 my AF lenses without a built-in motor won't autofocus but you can focus them manually using the camera's electronic rangefinder. Also they will meter - spot or centre weighted but not matrix. I believe that the D5100 is the same. Sometimes I use my old manual focus lenses on my D3100 and measure the exposure with a hand-held meter. <br>

Greg - you don't say if you intend to buy the camera with a kit lens. As this is your first DSLR I would get it in a kit with the 18-105mm lens and not buy any more lenses at this stage. You may well find that the 18 -105mm is all you need for family and travel. <br>

When traveling weight can be an issue. My travel kit consists of my just D3100 and a 16-85mm lens. There are very few photo opportunities that the 16-85mm won't cover and anyway I would probably miss several of them while changing lenses! </p>

<p>OK I've done it now. I had been looking at Nikon's US website and didn't come across a page which told me that I could download a full version for Mac of 2.2.6 (which, apparently is the version which works with the D3100) to update my 2.0.0 version. However I found it on their European site.<br>

The download went smoothly and I wasn't asked to put in my product key which I understand has caused problems for some people - with them getting a message telling that their key was invalid. </p>

<p>I have had Capture NX2 on my iMac for a while but have only just started to learn how to use it (it was bought in disc form from a reputable Nikon dealer not downloaded). I decided to download the updates that are available and followed the instruction in the manual which tells you to select the update option from the Help Menu and says "Selecting this option will open the Nikon Message Centre which will automatically check for any available updates and provide you with an option to download that update".<br>

However, unlike when I do the same thing with View NX, the Nikon Message Centre box does not appear.<br>

I seem to recall that when I first loaded NX2 a message came up suggesting I download the updates available at that time but I didn't do so because I had read that some people who had done that were experiencing problems - I thought it better to wait. <br>

Can I go to Nikon's website and download from there? I have looked at this but in order to download the latest Mac version 2.2.3 you have to have 2.2.0 or 2.2.2 already installed and I do not.<br>

I would be very grateful for any advice.</p>

<p>I appreciate what you say Laurie about carrying a heavy camera when on a long walk - an extra 200gms can make all the difference between comfort and agony! I have a D40x which is fine weight wise but lacks a number of features that I would like (sensor cleaning and the ability to take raw and large fine JPEGs at the same time and, of course the high ISO performance is not as good as either the D90 or D3100). The weights (without battery) of the D3100, D40x, D90 and D7000 are, respectively 455g, 495g, 620g and 690g.<br>

I have been debating whether to get a D7000 or a D3100 and, much as I would like a 100% viewfinder and the ability to meter with my old manual lenses, I have decided that because of the 245g weight difference it has to be the D3100. From what I have read the image quality is as good as the D7000 up to ISO1600 so I doubt if I will regret my decision. My favourite camera shop has just emailed to say that the D3100 is back in stock so I am going to buy mine this afternoon. BTW here in the UK you can buy a D3100 body on its own - and I don't mean as a kit with the lens removed by the store. <br>

If anyone in the UK who reads this is planning to buy a D3100 my advice is to do so before the end of January because Nikon has a £40 cash back offer which expires on the 31st. </p>

<p>Thanks Mark I'll have a look at that.</p>

<p>Thanks Mark - its always good to make contact with a fellow victim of Murphy's Law!</p>

<p>Mark Drutz - that's very helpful. As a long term film user I am used to going no higher than ISO400 and, for the most part, I have kept to that with my D40x. If the D3100 will allow me to get decent large prints at ISO800 and 1600 I will be very happy.<br>

Shun - I am not suggesting that this is a deliberate policy - I said "in effect". Hopefully the problems that William and Mark Mitchell experienced are rare but my impression is that such issues are being raised on the internet more so than with previous models. </p>

<p>Thanks Jerry, Mark and William. From comments I have seen on DP Review focussing problems seem to be an issue with some D7000s also. Looks as if Nikon didn't get their quality control up to the right standard before they released these cameras - I don't recall this being the case with earlier models - and, in effect, have let their initial customers do the final testing for them.<br>

Mark I too thought about the D90 as the price has now come down but the lighter weight of the D3100 and it's apparent better high ISO performance swayed me in it's direction. I think that perhaps I should wait 2-3 months, after which, hopefully, Nikon will have dealt with all the bugs (and improved their QC!) and then buy a D3100.<br>

William I find what you say about the relative ease of focussing manually with old MF lenses encouraging as I have four of these - 50mm, 85mm, 105mm and the "E" series 75-150mm. </p>

<p>I am thinking of buying a D3100 (upgrading from a D40x which I will keep as a backup) and would appreciate the views of anyone who owns one. The specification of the D7000 makes it very tempting but, at the end of the day, I like light cameras and the D7000 is about the same weight as my old Nikkormat FT2 which, even when I was younger, I found to be too heavy. Subsequently I bought an FE2 which felt just right and this served me very well until I moved on to digital.<br>

So if you have a D3100 what do you like about it and what do you not? Have you experienced any problems? My main concern is image quality and, in particular, I would like to know the highest ISO setting at which you would feel confident of producing a JPEG file capable making a good A3 print? I am not concerned about the video performance nor that it will only autofocus with lenses that have their own motor. The lens I will be using most of the time is my 16-85mm VR zoom although I will probably supplement this with a 35mm F1.8 at some point. </p>

<p>My trip of a lifetime was in the other direction - from the UK to the south western US. It was a few years ago and I was using film. I took one body (Nikon FE2) and one lens (28-105mm zoom) and no tripod. I did not regret doing this. I got (at least) 95% of the shots I wanted and when I got back to the hotel after walking around all day I didn't feel crippled from carrying too much. <br>

These days my travel/holiday kit is a Nikon D40X and a 16-85mm VR zoom<br>

Especially as you are new to photography I would just take your D90 and 18-105mm lens and, if you have one, a simple Point and Shoot camera as an insurance in case something goes wrong with the D90 (or it gets stolen!). Learn to use well what you own already. The lens you have incorporates VR and this will reduce the need for a tripod anyway (btw if you still decide to take a tripod make sure the VR is switched off when you use it).<br>

Photography is not about equipment its about seeing what would make a good picture. I often get the comment from people who see my photographs "Oh I would never have seen that!" and I might not have "seen it" either if I had been trying to cope with a bag full of equipment. With one body plus a decent zoom lens you can move quickly and get that shot which may only have been available for you to take for a few moments. <br>

Enjoy your trip.</p>

 

<p>Thank you all for your replies.<br>

Andrew you have given me just the information I needed. Fortunately I can get to Kingston quite easily so I don't think I will be bothering with the Royal Mail! </p>