Davide Baroni

Tom Mickan, I totally agree with your point. I have to admit that many won't take the responsibility for their results through post processing, though. And it's understandable, and even correct, depending on what kind of photos do you like to take and what kind of final outcome do you wish to have.

My feeling is that there's so many people "captured" by vivid, over-saturated colors that they won't ever catch the subtle nuances of color processing. And it's ok...

...The only thing I do not understand is, if that's the kind of pictures and final outcome you're interested in, why don't you stay with a P&S camera? They are set to give you exactly that kind of colors and processing... right away, no need for post processing most of the time. :-)

Anyway... Irene, the advices you received sound appropriate for the kind of outcome you seek.

I wouldn't give away the wider gamut of aRGB, or the NEF shooting, or the softer nuances... but, that's me, not you. :-)

But remember... "intense and saturated" is not always the best. :-)

Well, yes, pretty much happy, thank you. :-)

I'm a Nikon user, and I got 12-24, 18-70 (which I will change as soon as there will be a new 24-70 that costs less than a thousand euros... or I find a 2nd hand 28-70 2.8 for half that price), 80-200 2.8 and 300 f/4. I'm using 'em on a D70s, and next week I'll get my hands on a "new" second hand D2x.

And I'll be even happier. :-D

Davide

Well, my two cents.

I'm not one who comments a lot of photos. But I look at them a lot.

I find myself quitting seeking new photos. I always have to go through the whole page to see something I could have missed. And every time I have to, because I never know what's being showing up next.

I STRONGLY prefer the old way. Especially as I always filter the photos by category.

I'd rather let people choose how they want the photos sorted. It'd be just a flag in the cookies :-)

This way, I'm quickly losing interest. Who cares, you sould say... and you'd be right. If this is what majority likes, this will be.

Again, just my two cents...

Davide

Thank you both for the answer.

Matt, I have that problem ONLY with D300/D700/D3 files, and ONLY with their compressed NEF (Nikon RAW) files. No problem at all with non compressed files. And it's TOTALLY independent from how many files are in the folder... So, honestly, I don't think it comes from what you hypotize. Also, I stated my processor and RAM in my post...

Edmond... thank you, you had the very same problem I have. I appreciate your solution. Unfortunately, I took a whole bunch of photos without ever turning the camera off... and it didn't work.

Well, actually... they were the FIRST series of D300 raw files I shot, and in the beginning it looked like it WAS working just fine. At that time, I had BOTH NX and NX2 running on my PC. Then, as I was using mainly NX2, I uninstalled NX... and the troubles started to manifest.

This is why I uninstalled NX2 and went back to NX. Now it works ONLY if I modify the RAW via the regulations menu. If I change any of the "basic settings" (i.e., the ones on camera), I can't even save the modified file.

I think I will not upgrade my camera and switch to a mac instead! :-D

Anyway, if anybody has other suggestions BUT "format C and reinstall windows", I'll be glad to try them. :-)

Thank you again,

Davide

Hello,

this is an help request...

I've got a weird problem with my PC. Usually I shoot NEF with my D70s, and I develop them with Nikon Capture NX,

and now NX2. Recently I decided to upgrade to a new camera, either D2x-xs or D300, so I had friends lend me those

cameras and tried some shoots.

Well... When I uploaded them to my PC, I noticed that when trying to open a compressed NEF from the D300 from

Explorer, it results in an Explorer crash. I tried many ways, even formatted the PC and reinstalled the OS (WinXP

Home SP3) and the programs, but it didn't change... much. Now at least I can see the thumbnails, and can open the

files with NX2. But when I try to save them after developing, I get an "Access denied" error... AND an Explorer

crash. Same if I try to delete a file: I get the error "The file is in use by another user or program" (which is

NOT true... not that I know at least), AND Explorer crashes.

Same was happening on my laptop. But there I solved the problem... I uninstalled NX2 and reinstalled NX.

Reboot... and now it works.

I did the same on my desktop. No results. Until tonight... Last try went ok. I'm scared to say it. There's NO

reason for it going well now. Tomorrow I'll try again... who knows?

Anyway... Do any of you guys and gals know of this problem, and of its solution? Should I use just CS3 or LR2

(which many told me is the best)?

My PC: Dell Dimension 8300, Pentium IV 3.2 Ghz, 3 GB RAM DDR1, nVidia GeForce 5700 FX 256MB RAM DDR1. OS and MS

programs in C, other programs and data on F, photos on G.

Thank you for any help you may give me.

Davide - Italy

About 5,000 on my D70s, bought new in mid June 2005... the very week it came out (I had ordered a D70, the store gave me a 70s). I don't shoot many photos, actually... It could well survive me. :-)

Davide

William, what I notice again is that you asked the support about your camera being "weatherproof", and the Nikon support (and the manual) answer about it not being "waterproof". OF COURSE any camera would malfunction if IMMERSED in water (or any other liquid, for what matters)". But who in the hell would "immerse" his camera in water??? :-)

To be weatherproof just means that you can take your camera out in the rain and, given that the lens you're using is also weatherprrof (has O-rings "sealing" the possible infiltration passages against water), take as many photos you want without any major problem... Of course, as soon as you're done taking the photos, you take care of your camera and dry it out with the proper clothes, and any other care that may be appropriated.

That line in the manual, to me, is just a way to discourage people who don't really know how to take care of their camera about taking photos in adverse weather... and, even more likely, to put a "safety" against claims of malfunctioning from unexpert photographers who ACTUALLY took their photos without the required cautions and/or the post-session caring for the gear. :-)

OF COURSE, extreme humidity can, and often does, damage your gear, and more so in this high-tech electronic era. I still remember 26 years ago in the Amazon jungle... how many people with non-weatherproof cameras, first-ever electronic stuff (e.g. Canon AE-1 Program, among many others) totally unable to take pictures because their electronic gear went mad or was blocked. And I remember a French pro, with his two Leica III bodies, who spent at least half an hour every day taking mould away from the curtains of the shutters by means of a patient and delicate work... BTW, my "weatherproof" Pentax LX never gave me a single problem in about 6 months there. :-)

So, be serene. If you want "those" pictures, you'll have to take the risk. But if you take proper care of your camera, and NEVER "immerse" it in water ;-) , I'm pretty confident you'll get out of it without damages. :-)

As Brazilian people used to say about travelling on the Amazonas' muddy roads, "You won't get there if you feel sorry for your car!"... You could paraphrase it into "You won't get those photos, if you feel sorry for your gear!".

May the Light be with you

Davide

William, "weather-proof" doesn't mean in any way "water-proof". You can't put your camera into water and expect

it to escape without any damage. But many pros I know, who work in sports photography and particularly soccer,

let their D3s on tripod and remote control under heavy rain for the whole game, and they keep working, If you saw

the recent European Champioships, you saw PLENTY of them on TV too. To me, this IS to be weather proof. :-)

And anyway, I'm nor trying to convince you, nor anybody else. There's only ONE way to actual knowledge, and it's

personal experience. I went under a waterfall with my non-weatherproof D70s, and took some photos, and came back

as wet as I get. It still works perfectly. I didn't change lens while I was under the waterfall though. ;-)

Shouldn't I think that weather proof D3 is capable of much more? :-) Sure, if you use a D3 with a

non-weatherproof lens, you're looking for troubles. Ditto if you change lens in heavy rain without any caution.

But that would be foolish, wouldn't it?

Of course, you can think whatever you like. I'm pretty sure top Canon cameras (among others) are weather proof

too. But when somebody "advises" you such a thing, please, verufy it by yourself. :-)

Trust only direct experience. If you SAW it, then it's more likely to be true. Who knows what's in the head of

the guy advising you... :-D

"I don't use cameras as a sledge hammer."

Hmmm... and you always recognize hyperbolic metaphors used as a paradoxical exemple, too, huh? :-)

BTW... I personally had card failures. And I lost some photos I'll never have a chance to take again... I'm no professional, though, so it's only a "personal deception". But I couldn't imagine ANY pro dismiss a "default backup" tool like D3's dual slot as "useless".

And, also BTW, I come from 30+ years film photography. And I had more than several films lost or ruined by the labs, either for mistakes in the treatment or in the postal service or... And you know what? There was no backup. :-D

I saw one of these labs deliver a fully blank lot of slides (somebody mistakenly put the wrong chemicals in the wrong sequence) to a guy who had just done the journey to Africa he always dreamed of... No backup either.

A friend of mine had a whole wedding service with a line in the middle, because something went wrong in the lab's machine making a rectilinear scratch all along the film... And he had to retouch it ALL by himself: a nightmare.

So the "support failure" is NOT a "CF cards only" problem, and the dual slot IS a plus, IMHO. And more so for a professional photographer who would lose a lot of money on card failure. Even if it's not a probable event, one time is enough. Murphy rules! :-D

Davide

Well, it seems to me that some of the most important differences are simply overlooked. :-)

D3, as the previous D2 series, is first of all a true pro-body: it's like a tank. Fully weather proof (BTW, you CAN'T have a fully weather proof flash pop-up, so the latter is hardly a plus... and it can break, too), exceptonally strong (you can use it as a hammer to build your home AND, when you're done building, to take photos of your new house...), with such a good balance that you would never say it's THAT heavy. All commands are easy, everything is at hand, so that when I tried my friends' D3 (as well as D2xs) it was easy to understand and use. AND all commands button an items are fully weatherproof too. To me, this only would be well worth the difference in price...

Plus, there are all the things others have already stated.

Ah, I would NOT count the sensor cleaning system as such a plus. First, as my grandpa used to say, "More things there are, more things can break". Second, I clean the sensor of my camera by myself, and it takes about 30 seconds, all included. I can afford that without feeling i waste precious time. :-)

And if you go through the comparison suggested by David Glad Nelson you'll find many more differences.

The "true" point is: do this differences make a difference FOR YOU?

For me, they do, But you may have different needs and/or goals. :-)

Bye,

Davide

Sorry, something went wrong with the link...

The image is here: http://www.maxartis.it/data/2016/DSC_1612_b-copia.jpg

Davide

Shane, you can do better than that, maybe not with a P&S but certainly with a DSRL. :-)

I didn't shoot a D700 yet, and probably I'll never, but I took this with a D70s... and don't tell me it's 2-dimensional and flat! :-D

<img>http://www.maxartis.it/data/2016/DSC_1612_b-copia.jpg</img>

BTW, I just ordered a D300. :-)

Davide

Hmmm. I had exactly the same problem on my D70S when it was new. As the pics were visible on camera's monitor, but they were just as yours on PC screen, I thought the card should be ok... Well. It was the #ﾧ$%! CARD, The store where I bought the camera replaced the CF card with a Sandisk Extreme II... never had a problem anymore. Until I tried again to use the old card, of course! :-D

I now have the Extreme II (512 MB) and an A-Data (2 GB). The problem never happened again since I threw the first card into the bin. :-)

Hope this helps.

Ciao,

Davide

Sorry, Tim, you posted while I was writing. :-)

28-70 still seems to work well on D3... as for some friends opinions. I do NOT own either the D3 nor the 28-70. But anywhy there's a difference in the lenses treatment, I don't know what it results in, practically. Sorry for not being of more help.

Davide

I tend to agree with Wayne Cornell. OK, eventually maybe every reflex in the digital world wull be in Film Format. Eventually, maybe. And the only DX lenses that are really worth having are the costant max aperture wide angles. True: all the other ones, including the 18-70, are surpassed in performance by the equivalent FX lenses (as much as in price, weight, and some other criteria...). So the only true choice to be made here may be between the DX 12-24 f/4, which I would NOT use on FX sensors, and the FX 14-24 f/2.8, which is a superb lens but a bit "specialistic" on Film Frame (FF from now on). So the thing could be: "Do you really need such a wide angle zoom lens on your eventual FX body?"... If the answer is "No", then you can have a 2nd hand 12-24 that you'll resell whenever you go FF, without losing that much money. DX will stay around for long, I believe. At least until FX sensors won't come cheap. And even then, DX will still be much cheaper. :-D

And if the answer is "yes", then you'd go for the 14-24 now... or better in a few months' time, when its price will reduce "for physiological reasons". ;-)

Also, I've seen HUGE prints made from DX files. It seems to me that they have all you need for any purpose, fine art, advertisement, whatever. :-)

So I still don't see the REAL point in these "DX vs FX" discussions...

Ciao,

Davide

PS: Tim Porter, the previous Nikon lens was the 28-70 f/2.8, now discontinued... great lens though. Used it a whole afternoon with some friends. Minimum focal length and nano-treatment of the glass aside, I don't know the differences. :-)

FPW,

you're conceptually right, of course. But I'm a practical, pragmatic guy. :-)

The only DX lenses that are worth a thought are wide-angle zooms. I own the 12-24 f/4.0 only because there wasn't a FX lens at the time covering that range for the same price (only the beautiful but expensive 14mm prime). Today, I agree I'd go for the 14-24 2.8 FX... which, BTW, on a FX sensor is quite "extreme". But unless you shoot thousands of photos per month, and even so, you'd still be able to use your D300 DX along the next 10 years, and "convert" your lenses to FX meanwhile. When your D300 dies, you get the best body you can afford then... :-D Personally, I shoot south of 2.000 shots per YEAR.

About prints: I had some 30x45 cm prints from my D70 which I and the people who own them are pretty happy. Nonetheless, I understand your point... but you can use Genuine Fractals or other software of the like to solve your problem. The results could amaze you. :-)

And I've seen an AD campaign poster, 70x100cm, printed from a D100 file... schocking quality. It was on photographic printing, meaning no inkjet whatsoever...

And yes, you're right the long telephoto lenses the pro and the naturalistic photographers use these days are FX lenses... but when they'll have to buy a 300 2.8 to do what they currently do with a much lighter and less expensive 200 2.8, they'll NOT be happy. :-D

<<What is the actual influence of the sensor cost in the global price of a body today ?

Don't you think "affordability" for the potential panel of customers targeted for a specific body is far more important than the price level itself ?

The fact is the rejection ratio of full format sensors has certainly constantly dwindled during the recent period even if the sllicon wafer problems is still present, otherwise, prices would have stood at the same level as before. >>

Well, I'm not 100% sure, but it should be quite high... about 50+%.

"Affordability" is a good criterion. But the issue here is "what will the 'panel of customers' be?"... In my experience, Pro customers work also as a sort of "advertisement" for the bulk of customers. And the very bulk of the customers panel, those who make the balance sheet look so gracious, are in the lower layers...

And now, what if we let this thread to its original purpose, e.g. help Cecelia to make her decision, and (if you want) open a different thread to discuss the future of digital equipments? :-)

Thanks

Davide

Howard, I know this will sound silly, but... I have a D70 too, and 3 inches backfocus is HUGE. What I suggest is to check your settings to be sure you're locking exposure AND focus while recomposing. It is very easy to release the button even for a fraction of time... and it's enough to change the focus point. AND it only works in AF-S...

I use the dreaded "Closest" AF mode, and I used it both in Single and Continuous AF modes... Never had a problem, so if you're sure the marked AF box is the right one AND you don't move your finger on the button while re-composing, and the photo is still backfocused... well, consider dropping it to Nikon for a repair. :-)

About the "reset to zero" thing... You can always know how many releases the shutter really did. Shoot a photo (native jpeg should do, or a NEF which you'll convert to jpeg right away), upload it on your PC, and open it with Opanda iExif or GeVe ExifView (freeware SW capable of reading metadata). Then look for the "Total shutter releases" field... That's the number of releases of your camera's shutter. :-)

Ciao,

Davide

FPW, if your point is that sooner or later DX format will be totally replaced bt FX, I'd agree... to a certain point. Let's say that at least at the "entry level" and "intermediate level" (currently, D40-60-80 and the next D90, at least) DX will keep going for long. FX sensors will ALWAYS cost much more than DX sensors, and I mean much more than double, because of technological issues with the silicon wafers. And I'd bet all of those "entry and intermediate level" people will be quite happy to have a 12-24 DX to buy at half the price of the outstanding 14-24 f/2.8 FX... carrying half the weight and at half the size. :-)

Ditto for the huge telephoto lenses used by all the naturalistic photographers, who are taking advantage of the "crop factor" of the DX format and will start a riot if Nikon were to abolish DX format for their "pro" and "prosumer" lines... and ditto for sport photographers. Right yesterday I was looking at MotoGP, F.1 Gran Prix, and at BOTH events, photographers were shown by TV... well, MANY of them had D300... I'd swear almost all Nikonians, anyway. Crop factor strikes again? :-)

And one more observation... You do NOT buy digital photo equipment as an investment. You buy it for the purpose of taking photos. In these many years (eight years are a heck of a lot, in digital world) you shot many, many photos that you would have NOT shot if you'd waited for that forecast and speculations to become true. Also, the VAST majority of "the market" is made by people who won't have the money for a FX and the FX huge lenses for a long, long while... No, I don't think DX will die anytime soon. :-)

I currently have a D70s, which I'm quite happy with. I'm looking for a D300 or a D2x-xs only because I want a better viewfinder, and I'll likely keep that new camera forever. It'll produce beautiful files even when the D5 will be archaeology. :-D

Davide

Cecelia,

I see you are an experienced enough photographer in your field, particularly dogs shows. But I still feel perplexed at one thing you say... I own a D70s (and yes, I'm looking for a D300 or a 2nd hand D2x/xs, I just can't afford a D3), and I use it A LOT with my 80-200 2.8 AF-D, and even with the 300 f/4.0. And I just can't feel that unbalancement you talk about. So here I am with the stupidest question, because sometimes it's the stupidest thing that is overlooked... When you use the 70-200 VR (which I have used too), how do you hold the camera-plus-lens block? I got the strange feeling you keep holding the camera, instead of placing your left hand where the tripod collar is... which would make you feel "balanced" again. :-)

This said... If money isn't an issue, I'd just go D3. It's heavy, but, like the D2xs, its balance is such that I can use it all day long and just don't feel it but for the better, firmer weight distribution in my own hands. As Paul Gresham, I can "gain" about two whole stops just because of the better balanced weight. And it's quite A LOT. :-) But I concede it's heavy on the neck... if you let it weigh on it. I spend most of my time with the camera in my hands, so likely we just have different styles.

F. Weill, talking of constant aperture DX lenses, don't you forget the excellent 12-24 f/4.0, which I own and use really a lot... It's not a f/2.8, but who needs it on such a wide angle lens? :-)

Ciao,

Davide