chriscourt

Glad no one else has had issues like this with the Df.

I have a similar issue with the exposure comp dial on my Df. Turn the dial and the comp. value is all over the place. It's still in the shop, but they've quoted me $299 for the repair.

<p>134 clicks on mine (from BuyDig). Looks new.</p>

<p>C</p>

<p>Although perhaps not a critical factor given your usage, in addition to the points mentioned above, the AF on the D7200 is a significant step up from the D300.<br>

I recently purchased one – my first DX body in almost 8 years – and I've been very pleasantly impressed with the handling and the quality of the files from it.<br>

C</p>

<p>I own and love the 24 1.4, but if I'm going out with the aim of shooting landscapes, that is not the lens I would choose to carry. Not to say it's a <strong>bad</strong> landscape lens, but you're paying a significant premium for the fast aperture - not an attribute that is generally beneficial for landscape photography. I would echo the suggestions above to look closely at the new Nikon 20mm 1.8, for your stated usage.</p>

<p>C</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cywarp.com/FAQ_JPG_Degradation.htm">Here</a> is a visual demonstration of the inadvisability of multiple .jpg saves.</p>

<p>tl;dr version: Don't do it.</p>

<p>C</p>

<blockquote>

<p>my action will downgrade the original file to this size in 10 steps.<br>

by doing so you ensure the processing algorithms of jpg's compression layers to run over it more often and thus<br />have more detail remaining than just buy running it once.</p>

</blockquote>

With all due respect, this is a load of nonsense. First, understand that reducing the pixel dimensions of an image does not in any way involve the jpeg algorithm. The jpeg compression is only invoked when you save the file out of Photoshop (or Lightroom etc.) as a .jpg. Second, multiple applications of the jpeg algorithm will <strong>reduce</strong> the amount of detail in your file (sometimes severely, depending on the level of compression you choose), not preserve it, as you appear to be proposing.

C

<p>I expect this will cause some waves in the (Canon) used lens market!</p>

<p>C</p>

<p>I've had mine for a few years now… don't use it nearly enough, but the VERY FIRST IMAGE I ever took with it won an award, so I guess this one is not going up on the market any time soon.</p>

<p>C</p>

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

I have 4 of them... All read 0. Seems they are either VERY good batteries, or the age readout doesn't work as one might

imagine it should.

C

<p>Gitzo without a doubt. I have the 1541 with the small Markins head (Q10?) and it's remarkably light, compact, and for it's size, sturdy. I also previously had a 190 xpro-B (not CF). Good tripod for what it is… but not in any way comparable with the Gitzo. I've also used the 190 CF version, and while an improvement over the alu 190, it's still a relatively clunky design when compared to the Gitzo - considerably heavier and bulkier, although perhaps slightly more solid. I definitely prefer the Gitzo leg locks as well. The main benefit of the Manfrotto in my eyes is cost.</p>

<p>C</p>

<p>Interesting topic.</p>

<p>I noticed a long time ago that I see colours a little warmer with my right eye and cooler with my left. I have no idea which one is more "accurate". This has led me to wonder how much does colour perception vary between individuals? and does this has the potential to become a significant factor in post processing/colour correction etc.</p>

<p>C</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nice score!</p>

<p>C</p>

<p>As you use a Mac, try a program called Graphic Converter. It's able to open almost any graphic file you can imagine, including, oftentimes, ones that are corrupted in some way.</p>

<p>C</p>

<p>I owned both at the same time, and kept the 200. Never regretted that decision. Of course, YMMV.</p>

<p>C</p>

D or non-D shouldn't make a difference as to whether it

focuses on a given body or not. I believe the only difference

is that the D version will report subject distance to the body,

helping with ttl flash exposure. I'm sure the board brainiacs

will correct me if I'm wrong.

I travelled with a 35-70 + d700 to Argentina a could of years

ago. Got some nice shots, but I found the limited zoom

range quite restricting. For travel, I prefer to stick to a

superzoom + ultrawide.

Size wise, a 24-70 seems to be about twice the volume and

weight of the 35-70. Never owned a 28-70, but I believe it's

similar to the 24-70.

Cheers

C

<p>Your 17-55 should be worth approx. US$800 on the second-hand market. A nice used 24-120 can be had for perhaps $950? That's the trade I'd be looking at if I were in your shoes, rather than one of the Tamrons (good as I'm sure they are).</p>

<p>C</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1223464/0?keyword=rubber#11650005">This thread</a> on another site recommends the use of 303 Aerospace Protectant ahead of Armorall.<br>

<br>

C</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Never used a D3 or D3s but I do use my D4 for available light shots in a B&W printing dark room.<br />55mm f/1.2 at f/2 1/13 second <br /><a href=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> />Under these lighting conditions AF did not work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Surely the 55 f1.2 is a Manual Focus lens? So perhaps not surprising that even the D4's valiant AF attempts failed :-)<br>

<br>

C</p>

<p>I shoot for a local culinary magazine and my 2 most used lenses (shooting FX) are the 60 AF-S macro and the 24-70 2.8, with an almost even split between them. I have a 70-200, but rarely (never) reach for it for this usage. Also used the 105 VR for a while, but was just too long in many situations - restaurants are often fairly cramped environments - so I sold it. I also have a 85 PC, which on paper should be ideal, but as time is often a factor I do most of my food shooting hand-held (gasp!), so this bad boy usually stays at home.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, both the 70-200 and the 105 are superb lenses, just that - IMHO - there are better choices for this usage. </p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p>C</p>

<p>I have 2 of these batteries - both approx 3 years old, both used regularly (maybe averaging 500 shots per week?). Both still read battery age = 0, and both still get me well over 1000 shots on the D700 if I don't pixel peep too much.</p>

<p>Note that the D200 is quite a battery hog. You'll be lucky to get 500 shots out of a healthy, freshly charged EN-EL3 in that body.</p>

<p>C</p>

<p>Yes, Shun is correct. I have the 85 1.4, not the 1.8. I imagine that the similarities between the two fast 85mm primes would be greater than the differences, however not having used the 1.8, I could be mistaken.<br>

<br /> The 70-200 absolutely focusses faster than the 85, however - in the conditions I describe above, at the cost of 2 stops of ISO. It was the loss of dynamic range more than the increased noise that resulted in fewer keepers from the zoom. There is a big difference between ISO1600 and 6400 on the D700.</p>

<p>Chris</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I recently shot the women's World Squash Championships. It was played at night, outdoors, in a glass court. One of the features of the court is a couple of clear photographer's ports on the front wall - low down, on either side. I used D700 with a variety of glass, with a target SS of 1/800 - although I sometimes dropped that as low as 1/500. With the fast primes, I could keep the ISO as low as 1600, although with the zooms I was up around 6400 - which is higher than I really prefer to go on this body.<br>

After sorting my shots, the keeper rate was as follows:<br>

14-24: 3.5%<br>

50 1.8g: 3.5%<br>

70-200 VRII: 31%<br>

85 1.4g: 62%</p>

<p>I did find that the focussing on the 85 was considerably slower than the 70-200. Squash is a fast game, so there were a LOT of out of focus shots that didn't make the cut - however my keeper rate was enough to make my employer happy. I haven't used the 85 1.8, however I gather that it focusses perhaps slightly faster than the 1.4, and so may have been a marginally better option for this usage. Really, the biggest improvement I could have made to my keeper rate would have been to use a D3s or D4 body, but alas, we work with what we have available.<br>

C</p><div></div>

<p>Here's a 1:1 crop of the eye. I admit to being a bit of a pixel peeper, and it's details like this that still have me seriously jonesing for a D800 (or preferably "e").</p>

<p>C</p><div></div>