chip_chipowski

<blockquote> <p> I think it is possible to make a digital camera work in the same kind of way and solve the user interface problems with small cameras that way.</p> </blockquote> <p>I really like this sentiment. Part of the reason I like shooting with old Nikon bodies (FE2 & FM2) is the satisfying mechanical interface. Look at what Apple did with the crown feature on the new Apple Watch. I would like to think something similar could be achieved with the small body cameras, but cost is probably one barrier when it comes to mechanical control versus button.</p>

<p>Nish, I think the crop factor is about 2.7x so the 10-30 is close to a 28-80mm on the 35mm format.</p>

<p>I have actually been looking at used D700 prices this week. I'm in Portland, OR. The local pro camera shop has a used D700 just under $1000 (rough) and a couple just above $1000. KEH runs from $730 for a BGN and $1100 for EX.</p> <p>On Craigslist, I can find several very nice looking examples between $800 to $1000. You might think those prices should be lower by this point ;) </p> <p>Personally, I am hoping that the new Nikon FX push eventually gets more D700s on the used market. I am looking to pick a D700 up once the price drops to around $500. Who knows when that will be :)</p>

<p>I agree with all the comments on the older D300 sensor. If the OP is looking to purchase a camera, I think the key factors are: (1) budget; and (2) camera requirements. If your budget is under $500 and you need certain D300 strengths (large build, good ergonomics, nice feature set) then a D300 can make sense. However, if you have a larger budget then you may be able to find a better camera for your needs then D300. </p> <p>Personally, I moved from D200 to D300 and I am quite happy with the D300 for my needs. </p>

<p>Road Trip</p><div></div>

<p>Mike H - you are saying the MB-D14 takes eight (8) batteries? All the online references I found say it takes six (6) AA batteries, like Thomas K. indicated. This is a confusing thread.</p>

<blockquote> <p>That would be the forthcoming 300/4 Pro by Olympus (not f/2.8).</p> </blockquote> <p>Right - Peter did you flip apertures for the 7-14mm and 300mm in your post above? Olympus has announced a 7-14mm f/2.8 and then a 300mm f/4, correct?</p>

<p>Interesting comment from Howard about the Coolpix A. I think this is the natural "mirrorless option" for Nikon at least in the near term. As Shun said, anybody can predict the future. So I predict Nikon will offer an FX version of the Coolpix A within 3 years. I am unable to predict the focal length - Nikon went with 28mm for the Coolpix A, but I would like to see the FX version go with something in the 35mm to 50mm range. I predict I will not be able to afford the camera :)</p>

<p>I owned a GF1 for about a year and then a GX1 for another year and a half. I used a nice zoom (P14-45), the Oly 17mm pancake, and the Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye. I had an F-mount to M4/3 adapter, but did not use adapted lenses very often. On the Nikon side, I have been using a D200 and then D300 for the past 4-5 years. </p> <p>For me, the M4/3 cameras worked great but I just did not prefer them to my DSLR set up. The small size was helpful on a few occasions but I found I don't really mind the size of the Nikon DSLR. If I am going to carry a camera, the size difference is mostly inconsequential. </p> <p>M4/3 annoyances: (1) battery life; (2) durability; (3) ergonomics. The image quality was great but I am convinced I can usually spot a M4/3 "look" to images that I vaguely dislike. There is a sort of high sharpness and high DOF quality I perceive when I see many M4/3 images. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I find I prefer the image characteristics I see with APS-C and 35mm film. </p> <p>Also, I just got back from a road trip with lots of photo taking. With my DSLRs, they just go. You can leave the camera turned on and it is ready to shoot, no concerns about battery life. No need to wake up the EVF or LCD screen. The Nikon DSLR materials are quite robust - I don't worry about my camera being tossed into a pack or swinging around on my neck. The ergonomics are also excellent for handling the camera in difficult conditions and quickly adjusting settings. I expect the mirrorless cameras will continue to improve on battery life, EVF quality/durability, etc. and the future should include plenty of good camera options for all :)</p>

<p>Just for fun, here is one with the Series E 75-150 w/ Canon 500D Close-Up Filter</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the 28mm with a metal lens cap attached.</p><div></div>

<p>Mike, here is a 30 second exposure with the 18-55.</p><div></div>

<p>1 sec exposure</p><div></div>

<p>0.8 sec exposure - VR works pretty well</p><div></div>

<p>Handheld night shot, wide open @ 18mm</p><div></div>

<p>Sculpture</p><div></div>

<p>Manhole</p><div></div>

<p>Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 Type K</p><div></div>

<p>Foliage</p><div></div>

<p>Portlandia</p> <div></div>

<p>I just got my IR D200 today, so I took a break from work to try it out. The 18-55 seems to do fine on IR. I took some shots with a 28mm f/3.5 Type K and I didn't see a dramatic difference. These samples are processed on my work laptop, which doesn't have SilverEfex on it - my preferred B&W processor. I can tell I need a lot of practice processing IR. And "seeing" IR.</p><div></div>

<p>I second Shun's advice. Shelby, if you get a new card I suggest you also format the card in-camera before you start using it. I always reformat my cards after downloading images to my computer. You should be able to find the "Format Memory Card" option in the Set-Up Menu. Good luck!</p>

<p>Ralph - yes, HB-69 is the one. Glad I could return the favor after you turned me on to the HoodEye :)</p>

<p>Megan - from your other post it sounds like you have an 18-55mm kit lens. If you do, maybe it would be helpful to practice shooting at 35mm and 50mm. Just set your zoom to one focal length and leave it there for a while. You'll get a better sense of which field of view you prefer. You won't be able to imitate the kind of large apertures those prime lenses are capable of.</p>

<p>Christopher, this <a href=" probably beats my written description. Take a look around 25 seconds in, you can see the operation.</p>