craig_supplee

<p>I have a D7000 and have the Sigma 17-50 f2.8. At first I had some focus error isssues and had to send it back to Sigma. They adjusted the lens and now it has great IQ and accurate focus. Only thing that still trips me up is their reverse zoom rotation compared to Nikon and Tamron for Nikon glass. I also have a Tamron SP70-300 f4-5.6 Di VC USD. This is an excellent lens on my camera. Very sharp and contrasty. Just wish it was a 2.8.</p>

<p>@ A. T. Burke, very eye opening. Thank you.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for your input. I might have to re-think this camera. I could also look at the Fuji x100 which would solve the film scanning issues, but have seen mixed reviews on it.</p>

<p>First time on the rangefinder forum for me. I am contemplating getting a Contax G2 to use when I travel for work and maybe a little street work around home. I have a Nikon D7000 with a Sigma 17-50 but sometimes feel that is just to big and noticeable, and don't like to take that out of town as I would probably have to leave it in the hotel room during the day.</p>

<p>My question is about box store film scanning. I had read online that you can tweak the Noritsu settings and get very large MB images scanned to a disc. I was wondering if this is true, and if there are other economical solutions to scanning film. I do have a Microtek Artixscan M1, but find this to be a very slow and cumbersome way to handle film, especially 35mm. Your thoughts?</p>

<p>I've had mine for over a year and never had the dial move unless I moved it on purpose. That includes pulling it in and out of a snug camera bag. Weird.</p>

<p>Wonder if it has anything to do with the neck strap. I don't use one, have a home made version of a black rapid so nothing comes close to the dial.</p>

<p>I should have been more specific with my response. The OP was asking about cleaning tools in general I thought. I was referring to cleaning the lens glass surfaces with a microfiber cloth and a drop of cleaner solution. I have "cleaned" many cameras in my past, and have definitely scratched a few mirrors. Even when they were actually a "mirror" in some older 35mm jobs. I would be very careful now about puttting anything to a modern "mirror".</p>

<p>Hey Count, how about some lens cleaner solution and good quality microfiber cloths. You can get these at any decent eyeglass store. A lot better than hot breath and a shirt tail.</p>

<p>By the way, that name you're using might be trademarked. :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lex, I have auto update set to 3:00 am, and as my computer is never on at that time, nothing updates until I manually do it.</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, It doesn't seem to be a color profile issue. I tried it again at lunch after having just booted up, and both files looked the same. I am now wondering if your theory about placement on the screen could have been it. I don't remember where they were when I was comparing them. The last two times I have done this I made sure they were side by side, and both times they looked the same. I'm just hoping it is something that simple. Thanks to all for the help.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They won't appear the same, RAW file has minimally processed data the Jpeg doesn't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well the odd thing is, they did appear the same the second time I viewed them together about an hour later.</p>

<p>@ Summer, I meant to use the word<em> issues. </em>In my Midwestern brain, they can be used interchangeably as they can have the same meaning.</p>

<p>I was taking a few test shots with my D7000 tonight shooting in RAW plus JPG. I wanted to see how many times I have to zoom on the camera to have an equivalent 100% zoom in Capture NX2. I had just turned on the computer before uploading the pics. When I first opened up the JPG and RAW file of a pic, the RAW file was noticeably lighter and less saturated looking. I could not get it to match the JPG no matter what I tried. I left the computer running, and about an hour later decided to try it again as I was going to call Nikon Tech support. This time both pics looked identical. I viewed a few more combos, and they all looked the same also. My monitor is an LG Flatron W2252TQ that is about 2 years old. I can't believe it would be a monitor issue, but have no idea as to why the files would appear different. Even if the monitor wasn't "warmed up" I would think both files would still appear the same. Does a LCD screen have to "warm up"? I have the 2.3.1 version Capture NX2 running on Windows 7 64 bit. This is the first time I have tried the two files side by side, so not sure if this has been happening for awhile or not. Thoughts?<br>

By the way, 6 presses of the zoom button on my camera is close to 100% in Capture NX2.</p>

<p>I saw a guy going through the debris from a vac at the car wash today. You might add that to your search!</p>

<p>It sounds to me like the mirror up knob is not disengaging the shutter release from inside the camera so that only the cable release will trip the shutter. I don't have my RB anymore so I don't remember if you can see anything changing on the back of the lens when you rotate the mirror up control on the lens. I do remember that this button has to be pulled out and rotated to the "M" position and then it pops back in to place. Perhaps it's not making correct mechanical contact.</p>

<p>Try photobooksonline.</p>

<p>If it does it with more than one lens, it sounds like some sort of electrical short in the auto focus circuit inside the camera. A competent repair shop should be able to diagnose the problem and offer solutions. You mention that you just got this camera body. Can you take it back or contact sellerto see if they will work with you on a fix?</p>

I found that camera picture listing on eBay. It is item #140608653209. offered out of Texas and has 5 days left.

<p>Steaks on the Barbie!</p><div></div>

<p>Mint is what you eat after dinner before you go out shooting sunsets! It means "like new" condition.</p>

<p>Eric, I did have one picture from Mexico that was at ISO 1600, A shot of a night time doorway, but my girlfriend took a copy of the file before I could play with it and made a 20 x 30 for my birthday. Actually wasn't too bad considering I only shot LF Jpeg that trip.</p>

<p>On a side note to all this, as I have performed CLA's on some of my vintage large and medium format camera lenses, I googled for a repair manual for the Nikkor 16-85 lens today. Quite a manual; 144 pages packed full of specialized proceedures, equipment, etc. I am amazed that some of these lense are as cheap as they are. In case you are bored tonight have a look through at this:<br>

<a href="http://lens-club.ru/public/files/pdfs/a2af30eca4e0476e5a4cc8da77099c19.pdf">http://lens-club.ru/public/files/pdfs/a2af30eca4e0476e5a4cc8da77099c19.pdf</a></p>

<p>@ Wouter.<br>

No offense taken and no apologies necessary. I probably came off sounding like some sort of nervous wreck.</p>

<p>@ Eric.<br>

I'm not sure what I'm doing with the 16-85 yet. I didn't realize how much I seem to like VR, VC, OC, whatever, until I tried the Tamron without it. The issue was both that the 16-85 is not sharp, and I don't think I would enjoy the non VC tamron.</p>

<p>@ Andy.<br>

I know you can bump up the ISO on the D7000, I'm just not that used to that fact coming from a D40, and also playing around with medium and large format film. Velvia was the rule for me unless I specifically wanted grain, then I would shoot TRI-X. I still think that if I want to blow a picture up to 20 x 30, I have to use the absolute lowest ISO I can.<br>

BTW, my main reason for getting the D7000 was that I like to have the ability to blow up pictures quite large. I thought that camera would be able to handle the task. I also figured I would buy the latest technology I could afford, and then keep it for several years. My apologies for buying and returing lenses. I usually am very sure about something before I pull the trigger on it. The IQ issues with the D7000 has been rather frustrating to me. To paraphrase Shun, if you have a D7000, you should be prepared to spend big money on glass. I guess I'm looking for the $500.00 miracle lens.</p>

<p>I took the 16-85 lens up to an Authorized Nikon repair shop today, and on initial inspection, they found it to be back focusing. They are going to work on it, and hopefully I will have something good to report in a week or so.</p>

<p>Perhaps I need to clarify a few things here. I am not really as shaky as it seems I presented myself. When I use proper stance I can hold the camera very still. Maybe an occasional slight wavering is a better term. If I concentrate on something in the viewfinder, i can actually see my heartbeat move the camera. I have a small frame and everything is close to the surface I guess. I can hold my breath to take a shot, but there is no way to stop my heart!</p>

<p>I bought the D7000 and 16-85 only a few weeks prior to a trip to Mexico last year. I didn't have a real chance to try out the lens as it was Michigan in late January and I had a lot going on. When I got back it was too late to return it to B&H Photo. I know this lens is highly regarded, that's one reason I bought it. I just wonder though if it is not possible to get a bad copy, even though it is produced by Nikon with apparently good QC measures in place. The test between the Nikkor 16-85 and Tamron 17-50 was done simultaneously under the same conditions. The Tamron had noticeably sharper IQ at 35mm and below. And this is using the VR on the Nikkor. I have also used fine tuning on the Nikkor, and have it set to -6. This seemed to be the best setting, as it changed from 16-85. It's too bad you can't dial in separate settings for different focal lengths on a given lens.</p>

<p>I use a tripod for my landscape work, but it's not very practical at family gatherings, street fairs, walking about, etc. I do have a SB 600 and use it when necessary.</p>

<p>At this point I have decided to return the Tamron and maybe I'll send my Nikkor 16-85 in to see if it is somehow out of tolerance. I am also thinking of trying the Sigma 17-50 2.8 with the OC. Most of my shots are below 50mm (90% of the Mexico pictures were 50mm or below) and I have the new Tamron SP 70-300 VC which gives excellent results (again, testing this against my 16-85 at 70-85mm, the Tamron had noticeably better IQ) for anything beyond the range of the 17-50.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>I usually just sit back in the shadows here every day and try to absorb and learn as much as I can, but now I need your help. A little backround: amature here, shooting landscapes, cityscapes, family and friends gatherings, anything that catches my eye.</p>

<p>I just recieved a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC for my D7000 after never really coming to grips with the less that stellar IQ from my Nikkor 16-85. The Tamron is super from 17 all the way to just below 50. Then the Nikkor just edges it out. I like the fact that the Tamron is a constant 2.8 so that I can possibly use it in lower light or to separate my subject. My delema after using this lens for a few days is the fact that it doesn't have VC (I didn't buy that version as all the reports indicated it had lower IQ than the original. I need all the help I can get with the D7000). I am closing in on 60 and not getting any steadier.</p>

<p>My original plan was to send this lens back and get a small fast wide angle prime to go with my AF-S 35mm 1.8G and AF-S 50mm 1.8G. I actually ordered a Nikkor 20mm 2.8 AF-D but have read that it isn't all that great on 12MP cameras, so I believe it would be really bad on the D7000. My thought with the primes was that I could always crop up to the picture I want. I realize I would be changing lenses more often. Even with the Tamron, I get superior IQ from my little Nikkors at the same focal length setting. I had also thought about getting the Sigma 17-50 2.8 as it has OC. But again, have no idea as to the performance on the D7000. Another route would be to go with their 8-16 2.8 (read great things about this lens) and maybe their 20 or 24 1.8 primes, but have no clue how they would perform on the D7000.</p>

<p>Well I have re read this a few times and can't seem to make it any clearer, so I invite you to sift through it and give me your opinions, on the lens situation that is, not my use of English syntax. :-)</p>

<p>Thanks to all!</p>

<p>Hello everyone, and happy late Wednesday to all! Lots of excellent photos that give me encouragment. This is my first Nikon Wednesday posting.<br />Shot is from the Detroit Riverfest 2 weeks ago. This guy was doing double flips!</p><div></div>

<p>Is it Kahnee Omega or Kohnee Omega. Nee-sahn or Nis-sahn. Is it Sushi or raw fish.</p>

<p>My 2 cents worth. I bought the D7000 2 weeks before a trip to Mexico last February. Coming from a D40, this was a huge step forward. I had a Nikon 18-200 which was great for the D40, but sucked on the D7000. I scrambled and bought the 16-85, Tamron 70-300 SP, and the Sigma 10-20 4/5.6. While waiting for the lenses, I crammed my reading and testing on the D7000 as if I had an exam coming up, which essentually I did if I wanted to get any good pics from my trip. As it turned out, the 16-85 spent 80% of the time on the camera, and most of my shots turned out great. I added the MB-D11 for comfort, and this whole combo makes a fantastic travel kit.</p>

<p>Sense you say it is random, I think it is a light leak and is associated with the position of the camera and sun or bright light source when you are taking a picture. Perhaps you could stand out in an open area on a sunny day and rotate around taking several shots (sun to the side, sun to the front, etc) and see if and when it happens. That might help you find where the light leak is. Flare won't show as the same shape from shot to shot.</p>