chip_chipowski

<p>Andrew, here is some more info on SB-5000: http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/speedlights/speedlight-sb-5000</p> <p>From the page, it looks like it CLS remote so I would guess it can also be a CLS master:</p> <p><em>"At the heart of the SB-5000 is Nikon’s i-TTL (intelligent Through-The-Lens) flash control, which enables Nikon Speedlights to share critical exposure information with CLS compatible D-SLRs. The SB-5000 can be radio controlled as part of an Advanced Wireless Lighting setup or controlled traditionally using line-of-sight optical control. Operational refinements include unified flash control, which adds an extra level of system control. Now you can operate the SB-5000 or change its settings from the camera menu, or a computer running Camera Control Pro 2, when the unit is attached to the camera body."</em></p>

<p>I think even Andrew would agree the DF has been a wild success in terms of generating attention on camera forums. Here we are on the the D5/D500 intro thread, and the DF is somehow still getting attention - AMAZING :)</p> <p>I wonder how many people are interested in the new wireless flash system? I think it looks really cool. I was interested to see comments from the link Shun posted earlier for the post by Todd Owyoung. He was very impressed by the camera-based remote interface. So clearly this new wireless flash functionality is built-in to the D5 and D500. My question is whether Nikon will come out with a hotshoe based wireless transmitter to use the radio wireless flash with an older model Nikon - anybody know?</p>

<p>Eric, it is just terrible luck that you keep having personality conflicts with other posters. By the way, it would be libel not slander.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Hard to call the Df a win under any circumstances. it was simply the wrong camera at the right time.</p> </blockquote> <p>Whether a product is a "winner" or "loser" depends on the metric. However, I am curious why the DF should be considered a failure. There is a cult like following among a small group of users, which seems about right for a niche product. I don't remember what the DF intro price was, but it seems like the price is still high. Clearly though, the DF made a lot of people mad :)</p>

<p>Happy New Year everybody!</p><div></div>

<p>I think Shun is being a pretty good sport about this D500, and I would point out he already acknowledged he was wrong, way up on this thread. It is fun to speculate as to why Nikon played it the way they did, but mostly I am just impressed how well they kept this secret.</p> <p>Also, Jeff - no kidding! There are a lot of Eeyores on this forum ;)</p>

<p>In the shot with the bib, the blue bib seems to be very sharp and in focus. In the guitar shot, it looks to me like there may be some motion blurring going on. In any event, those both look like challenging shots in terms of nailing focus with shallow DOF. I agree with Shun's recommendation to put the camera on a tripod and do comparison shots using live view manual focus.</p>

<p>The more I read about the D500, the more I like it. Looks like it can do just about anything I would want from a camera. The only problem is I suspect it will take a long time before the camera comes down to my price range, but I am happy to wait :)</p> <p>I always appreciate the impact of a new Nikon on the used market for older models. The D300 already sells in my area for around $300 so I cannot imagine it goes much lower than that. Maybe this camera somehow will force more D700 models onto the used market - I can hope ;)</p>

<p>Hell freezes over. I have not seen so much forum excitement about a camera in some time. All ye thirsty Nikon faithful, drink up your new APS-C savior :)</p>

<p>+1 Sandy</p>

<p>John, I would not hold my breath on the focus scale. It seems to me Nikon wants these entry kit lenses to be good optically but low cost. It is a little funny that Nikon is making versions with and without VR. I guess a non-VR model will be good to bundle with the lowest priced cameras but I thought Nikon had phased out the non-VR 18-55.<br> Anyway, I have the last version of 18-55VR, with collapsing design. It is so nice and compact and the image quality is quite excellent for the price. </p>

<p>+1 Bob. I appreciate the many thoughtful contributions on this thread, which is really about a tough and subjective <em>subject</em>. Hopefully it is of some benefit to the OP. </p>

<blockquote> <p>color balance, sharpening, and other sometimes very drastic photo editing is the key to great photos</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree PP is important but I have always found my favorite photos looked great from the start. </p>

<p>Sorry to hear this harrowing tale, Chris. Some are saying to leave it be, but I think you said you have problems with infinity focus. I assume that problem persists? If so, I think Nikon service might be the best bet just due to the specialized nature of the task (i.e. improper lens mount alignment). Hope you get it sorted out.</p>

<p>Yes - they are different. Think of it this way: picture control is like different kinds of film (vivid, portrait, monochrome). Scene control is like an exposure control - different scene modes will give you different priorities for shutter speed and aperture. If you shoot raw, I believe the picture control does not do anything unless you are using Nikon software. For jpeg, the picture control settings should result in different jpeg output. </p>

<p>Juicy is a tough one. Depth on the other hand, is common parlance in photography. What is meant by "depth" is somewhat subjective, but I like photography that conveys a sense of depth. This article helps to illustrate my point: http://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/how-to-create-a-sense-of-depth-to-your-photos--photo-10194</p>

<p>Mt. McLoughlin</p><div></div>

<p>Yes, this is THE big question in photography. Jeff is right about examples. </p> <p>You mentioned "juiciness and depth." My advice is to get close to your subject and really try to fill the frame with interesting details. Experiment with large and small apertures to see the different effect. Personally, I like large apertures and shallow depth of field, which can help the subject really pop. Good luck, and practice, practice, practice!</p>

<p>Agreed - cheers to Clive for that response. What a striking juxtaposition to the usual attitude: "actually, I said this but meant that."</p> <p>My favorite lens is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. </p>

<blockquote> <p>i can guarantee you will find zero pro sports shooters using manual focus cameras today at major events</p> </blockquote> <p>"Guarantee" and "never" are strong words. The examples below are unusual and the exception to the norm, but the results speak for themselves.</p> <p>http://petapixel.com/2014/05/01/photographer-shares-results-shooting-5x4-camera-olympics/</p> <p>http://petapixel.com/2013/02/08/david-burnetts-speed-graphic-photos-of-the-london-2012-olympics/</p>

<p>Robert, I agree with Shun - a mid-range zoom would be a good idea. Since you are a beginner, you may be well served by a little patience before spending your full budget. I have the new 18-55VR lens, and it is a great value! You can get a refurbished copy for less than $100. It is small and sharp and has great VR. </p> <p>The 18-55 could at least serve as a landscape lens until you have a better idea of what kind of landscape photography you want to do. The 18-55 <em>could</em> technically serve as a compromise portrait lens, but it is a small aperture lens so it won't be able to achieve the same shallow depth of field look as the 85mm f/1.8. </p>

<p>Robert - I have heard nothing but praise for the 85mm f/1.8G. As a matter of semantics, I just want to point out you can take landscape photos with any lens. Some people associate landscape photography with wide angle lens, but this is a personal choice. So speaking personally, I find wide angle is pretty hard to use effectively. Some beginners will use a wide angle to capture a large scene, but the beginner frequently neglects the foreground or the corners. So you often end up with a boring image with very little depth. By all means, get a wide zoom (I have the Tokina 12-24 and I like it). But I encourage experimenting with normal and telephoto perspectives in your landscape photography.</p>

<p>Personally, I like this kind of natural wear. I hate to be a naysayer, but I think painting the worn spots might end up making it look worse. </p>

<p>In that thread I linked, there are some user test shots comparing the f/1.8 Nikkor versus the f/1.4 Sigma. The Nikkor did a little better with flare, perhaps due to Nano coating. Good news is they both look pretty great!</p>