john_hinkey

January 16, 2014

When I had my D700 I had a real continuing dust problem that I thought would be even worse when I got my D800, but Nikon used some magic engineering I suppose as I've had far far less dust issues with the 36MP sensor of the D800 than the 12MP sensor of my long-since-sold D700. This in spite of tons of dust particles inside my mirror box of the D800.

I've been really impressed with my m43 gear where the sensor is exposed directly all the time - I hardly ever get even a singe speck of dust on my 3 cameras.

January 16, 2014

Isn't photography an art, and if so, are you not supposed to seek perfection?

</blockquote>

Yes, but in this case perfection is unobtainable and you must face the realities of digital sensors - they get dusty and you have to clean them. Your two spots are not out of the ordinary by any measure.

I do not know if I am overly picky and others do not care.

</blockquote>

Yes, you are being overly picky and others do care since they are taking the time to respond to your posts.

I am kind of vacillating whether to return for exchange or not since so far it has 2 small oil spots, and I live it with. If this 2 small oil spot is rather normal for the new D610, then, there is no point for exchange since another one might have also. And I will just keep the current one.

</blockquote>

Once again - you have no idea if these are oil spots so I would highly suggest you quit calling them that. I would be thrilled if that's the only spots I had on my sensor.

Either return/exchange it or go find someone that can look at the sensor, see what kind of particles they are and have it professionally cleaned.

There are a lot of experienced digital photographers giving you really good advice, but you seem to not want to take it.

January 15, 2014

Jason -

<ul>

<li>Again - you don't know for certain that these are oil spots - they look just like typical dust spots too</li>

<li>You only have two spots on the entire image - which is actually very very good and very different from the many many oil spots typically generated by the D600 problem</li>

<li>Spots this small you only really see them at f/16 - which is typical (or at larger apertures with longer lenses that are very telecentric at larger apertures)</li>

<li>As soon as you take the body cap off and mount a lens and take an image with a new camera you are likely get some dust on the sensor - this is completely normal</li>

<li>I've cleaned my D800 many times and I've never been able to get each and every dust spot gone or if I did manage to do that a spot or two usually comes back after a bit of use. Totally normal. I try to get the "big" dust spots gone and not sweat the small ones that can barely be seen.</li>

<li>With two spots I think you are over-reacting.</li>

<li>Get it professionally cleaned if they bother you and find out if they are actually oil - you can't tell if it's an oil or dust spot by looking at the image produced by the sensor - you have to look at the sensor surface using a sensor loupe or some other appropriate sensor surface imaging tool.</li>

<li>Dust spots on a digital interchangeable lens camera are something that you will have to deal with. Either learn to clean the sensor yourself or find a place that can do it for you. Sometimes I go many months with just a few spots that are not worth cleaning, other times I need to clean it once a week because I've taken a lot of images in a really dusty place with a lot of lens changes.</li>

</ul>

January 14, 2014

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6789788">Don Bright</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 14, 2014; 10:15 p.m. I will take the OPs word that he knows the difference between oil spots, and dust spots,

</blockquote>

Well guess which is the OP's "oil spot" and a dust spot from my D800 taken this afternoon with my 90/3.5 CF at f/16 . . . both converted to B&W . . .

It really doesn't make a difference which one you guess, because there's no real difference in the character between the spots that would make one an oil spot and the other a dust spot.

The OP might be right, but unless you try to clean it or look at the spot with a sensor loupe you just can't tell from taking an image what kind of spot it is. Plus, he has only two spots that I can see on his entire 24MP sensor - that's pretty outstanding in my book as as soon as I've cleaned my sensor I still have a couple of very minor spots just like his.

January 14, 2014

I just took a similar image on my D800 with my 90/3.5 CF at f/16 (your image was 85mm at f/16) and the few dust spots look very similar to yours - not clearly defined at all. I wouldn't jump to conclusions that it's oil - it looks very much like typical dust to me. Like I said, I recommend getting a sensor loupe and look at it before you return the camera.

January 14, 2014

Is the OP sure it's oil spots or is it just regular sensor dust?

January 13, 2014

Yep, my 17-35/2.8 AFS has the squeak - has had it for 4 years now. ~$450 to have it fixed by APS.

I haven't yet because it's still working just fine, but I likely will have it done soon as I'm thinking of selling it. APS not only will fix the motor, but also re-calibrate and replace some wear components inside the lens while they do it.

As others have said it could go on squeaking for a very long time or die tomorrow . . . as long as it still focuses fine you might want to live with it.

January 8, 2014

As much as I respect Ilkka I just have to respond to this as both a m43 and D800 owner:

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 08, 2014; 08:26 a.m.

Micro Four Thirds is a standard shared by several manufacturers and this has lead to a rapidly evolving lens system, but how exciting are the lenses really? A fast wide angle prime? Well the 12/2 costs 700€ and is equivalent to a 24/4 on FX. If Nikon introduced a regular 24/4 and asked 700€ for it, it would be considered overpriced and underspecified. Fuji introduced a 1000€ 56/1.2 which is roughly equivalent to 85/1.8 on FX which costs 500€ for Nikon. Nikon FX is actually quite affordable when you consider the cost per lens and the depth of field and subject isolation ability that you get even with the more affordable lenses (and the signal to noise ratio). Sony's 35mm f/2.8 for full frame mirrorless costs 600€; Nikon offers a 35/1.8 for less money. Nikon FX lenses can be great value really, if you make honest comparisons that take into account the depth of field and signal to noise ratio at the same angle of view (the picture has to be equal in tonal quality, angle of view, and depth of field). Mirrorless camera manufacturers ask a hefty premium for their prime lenses that are not nearly as light sensitive as less expensive FX DSLR lenses. It's the premium you pay for the small size, I guess. I am so happy not to be invested in these systems where lens buyers are overcharged for lenses of quite modest specifications.</blockquote>

Your "honest" comparison does not take into account things like weight, size, & AF accuracy. Some of my FX gear gets left behind due to weight and size problems. Some of my FX lenses have focus issues. If Nikon came out with a compact excellent wide open 24/4 I would certainly be interested in getting one as there currently are no excellent 24/4 options except for the 24/1.4 which is neither compact nor $799 (NONE of the 24-XXX Nikon zooms currently are very good at 24mm at f/4 - well, maybe the 24-70/2.8 . . .).

As a happy m43 user I find that I am willing to pay a "premium" for some m43 lenses because:

- Compact system - bodies and lenses. Much lower weight too.

- Excellent image quality wide open (75/1.8 Oly, 8/3.5 fisheye, 12-35/2.8 Pany to name a few) on many of the more expensive premium priced lenses

- For landscape use f/4 is the same DOF as f/8 on FX, so I can typically shoot at higher shutter speeds making up (somewhat) for the lower DR (though DR is certainly an issue with m43 even at base ISO, but many times it's good enough). Tripod use is a different beast all together and FX typically wins if shutter speed is not an issue.

- Excellent AF accuracy - something I struggle with on my D800. I also struggle with my MF lenses on my D800. It's way easier to manual focus on my GX7 than on my D800 and to me that matters.

Stabilization is kind of outdated now; even Sony's new full frame mirrorless cameras don't have it. Why? I think it's simply because users and manufacturers are realizing that with high resolution sensors, turning stabilization on can actually reduce the sharpness of the resulting images (due to the finite precision of the correction system), it is better to go for high ISO and wide aperture to get a fast shutter speed, if you want a sharp high resolution image. I used to think that a VR version of the 300/4 is a high priority since I can't hand hold the VR-less 300/4 with 1.4X TC in many lighting conditions (large concert stage by evening in the shade) with good results. Now that I've used several 400mm setups which do support VR, I've come to the realization that to get the best results VR isn't the solution, very high shutter speeds and/or a tripod are. VR can be very useful in the 200mm range though, which is probably why Nikon has so many lenses with VR in this range. I've come to the conclusion that this may not be such a hot idea in the end. It is good that the 80-400 has VR but really its best results come from tripod use when it comes to focal lengths significantly greater than 200mm. On standard range zooms, Nikon offers VR on the 24-85 and 24-120/4. The 24-70 doesn't have it because its users are expected to understand that a high shutter speed works better if the subject is moving, and if it's static the user most likely uses a tripod. Optical, size and durability compromises required to implement stabilization are not necessarily desired by the target of this lens. Canon seems to have similar customers as they also don't make the 24-70/2.8 with IS. However, Tamron does, and you can get that if stabilization is what you want. Personally I believe that the best results are obtained using fast shutter speeds, with VR off.

</blockquote>

Sure, maybe for very long glass that you wouldn't hand hold anyways VR/OIS/IBIS/etc. is not so useful, but for shorter focal lengths it's VERY useful. My GX7 has "antiquated" 2 axis IBIS that I find gives me at least 2 stops of extra shutter speed on my non OIS lenses. That's certainly worth it to me. I would absolutely love to have IBIS on a D800. I suspect SONY didn't put it in the A7® bodies because of space/cost/power/etc. issues. It's also excellent for video use for non-VR/OIS lenses.

Nikon has got many new compact professional or near-professional grade zooms. They also have an excellent range of fast primes for FX. 24/1.4, 28/1.8, 35/1.4, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 58/1.4, 85/1.8, 85/1.4 etc. and more will surely follow (Nikon patents exist for new 18/1.8, 20/1.8, 105/2, 135/1.8). MFT "fast" primes are equivalent to slow primes on FX, when it comes to critical image characteristics of depth of field, subject isolation, and signal-to-noise in the final image. How exciting are those really?

</blockquote>

For those of us who don't put a premium on extremely low DOF/subject isolation the "slow" m43 f/1.8 primes are excellent. They provide fast shutter speeds due to the low f-number while providing a reasonably low DOF for most shooting situations. If I want ultra-low DOF then I reach for my FX gear. I get excited about my 20/1.7 and 75/1.8 because I get excellent and fast AF accuracy wide open (something that is more difficult with my D800) AND they are far far more compact than the FX FOV equivalents.

Certainly m43 cannot compete with FX in many imaging characteristics, but what one considers to be an important imaging characteristic changes by use and by person. I like having both options and so far don't feel that I've been over-charged for my m43 bodies or lenses considering what I've been able to do with them relative to my FX body and lenses.

John

December 16, 2013

I scanned a few thousand slides with a 5000ED a few years ago and even with the SF-210 (when fixed not to jam) it is still very laborious. Even though the 5000ED has dust and scratch removal you still need to make sure the slides are not too dusty or it will still show artifacts.

I also found that the 5000ED did not always get the exposure optimally if you have images with lots of shadows or lots of bright highlights.

I took it apart to clean dust off the mirror (not a job for anyone for sure) and it's built like a tank inside, so 40K slides should not be any problem at all unless it's been super heavily used in the past.

The 5000ED has flare problems with images that have bright highlights next to deep shadows.

For some of my more recent slides (that are in fantastic shape) I re-imaged them with my D800 + 55/3.5 AIS macro and the PB-6 bellows/PS-6 slide holder using my portable light table as the light source. This setup won't fix scratches or dust, but the D800 images have no flare issues at all, are just as sharp, and have better color and slightly better dynamic range. It is, however time consuming due to not having an automated system - it takes about 1 minute per slide due to dusting them off with a can of air and making sure the exposure is OK (using live view) prior to taking the image. Minor scratches and dust are usually easily fixed in post using NX2 or PS.

Good luck!

December 12, 2013

It's not that the green focus confirmation dot is unreliable, on my D800 I found that peak focus is lens dependent. One lens I have is perfectly in focus when the light just starts to flicker on when coming from the near side of focus. Another is when it's fully illuminated, while another needs to be just on the far side of dot lighting up (i.e., coming from infinity focus to closer in). I have to remember which lens behaves like what. This is one of the main reasons I want a mirrorless D800 (AKA a Sony A7r, but with a Nikon logo on it) - so I can nearly instantly check the focus in the viewfinder like I can on my m43 cameras and nail it.

I had wish that on the Df Nikon would have used a different focus confirmation method that was more amenable to manual focusing when using the PDAF system.

December 11, 2013

Dehuan is right - if you are looking for pixel level sharpness from a lens the D800 is unforgiving. But, if you are not looking at the pixel level, unless a lens is really horrid, the extra sampling of the image by the 36MP of the D800 will make the lower resolution image/print be a bit better.

December 11, 2013

See here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/929565/3438#lastmessage

and see the thread just posted today asking a similar question.

December 11, 2013

See this extensive on-going thread over at FM:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/929565/3438#lastmessage

Don't let generalizations fool you - the D800 is unforgiving of any lens that is not the sharpest - it really doesn't matter how old it is.

I use/have used these manual focus Nikkors on my D800 and they are excellent:

<ul>

<li>16/3.5 AI - Sharpest Nikkor I own. At f/8 it has more resolving ability than the 36MP of the D800 can record. Excellent flare/ghosting resistance.</li>

<li>45/2.8 AI-P - Sharp center wide open, very sharp across the frame stopped down except for the very far extreme corners which never quite reach great levels. Does not like being pointed into the sun however.</li>

<li>90/3.5 Cosina Voigtlander SL-II - Excellent wide open across the frame and oh so compact</li>

<li>100/2 MP Zeiss - Excellent across the frame wide open, with slight increase in sharpness and contrast stopping down. Amazing at f/4. It's not really a recently designed lens, but it sure acts like one.</li>

<li>105/2.5 AIS - Sharp in the center wide open - not bad across the frame stopped down. Has a bit of CA that cleans up nicely in post. Better at distance than up close.</li>

<li>135/2 AIS - Low contrast wide open, but sharp and very sharp stopped down a bit. Every bit as good as the 135/2DC (in my experience actually better), but without the silly AF consistency problems.</li>

<li>135/3.5 AIS - Very very good wide open and excellent stopped down. Not the greatest for flare/ghosting.</li>

<li>180/3.4 Leica APO Telyt - Excellent wide open across the entire frame and hardly improves as you stop it down.</li>

<li>400/5.6 ED-IF AIS or ED AI - The most compact 400mm Nikkor prime you can buy. Excellent even at f/5.6. A bit of CA is there, but typically this clears up in post. Really excellent closer in, but very very good at distance (assuming you aren't limited by atmospherics, which you typically are). The ED AI is slightly better than the ED-IF AIS.</li>

</ul>

Undoubtedly other folks will chime in.

December 2, 2013

My local tech here in Seattle has fixed some dented rings for me that prior to the service you couldn't get a filter on. Afterwards the filter ring worked just fine - just missing some black paint.

November 25, 2013

Oops - Forgot to add the NEX cameras in the APS-C mirrorless, though I still say the lenses make the overall system not that compact or weight saving over FX to be worthwhile for me.

November 25, 2013

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=24548">Steve Bingham</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 20, 2013; 11:23 p.m.

I think you are going to see the Fuji X series dominate the mirror-less market over the next year. It will pretty much catch up to Olympus - and pass them. Sony is confused - no lenses. Nikon and Canon are even more confused. Panasonic is still on 1st base.

</blockquote>

Hmm . . . I have no idea why you would put Panasonic on 1st base.

The Olympus and Panasonic bodies (GH3, EM1) each have their own pluses and minuses with no clear leader IMHO - it all depends on what you shoot. Panasonic and Olympus also are putting out some fantastic glass for m43, each with pluses and minuses. I like the Olympus primes (especially the 75/1.8), but also like the Panasonic zooms (12-35/2.8).

The way I see things:

FX DSLRs for ultimate image quality, operability, etc. and selection of lenses. Though cost and weight are not their strong points.

FX Mirrorless is in it's infancy, with Sony the current "leader", though native lens selection is limited at best. Though the camera body may be small and light, the overall system, when including lenses, likely will not be.

APS-C Mirrorless (i.e., mainly Fuji XE cameras) are a great middle-ground between system cost/weight and image quality. Somewhat limited lens selection, but getting better.

m43 Mirrorless (Panasonic and Olympus) are great compact systems with excellent selection of native and third-party lenses. Sensor IQ is very good and very acceptable for a vast number of uses and situations. The overall system size/weight is pretty small, though not necessarily inexpensive.

For me, a full on D800 owner with a lot of FX glass, the m43 system is very attractive due to the more than good-enough IQ of the current sensors and the excellent zooms and primes available. The overall system size/weight is much much reduced from my FX kit. When I look at the Fuji system I find that the overall system size/weight is not enough reduced from my FX gear to be worth it.

I will say though that if I had to choose one system to do it all I think I would pick the Fuji cameras and lenses. I like the sensor IQ and the lenses they have and are planning on producing. I sincerely hope Fuji can stay viable in the APS-C mirrorless market.

November 21, 2013

Helicon remote on my Samsung Tab 7.7 has worked just fine with my D800 via the USB3 cable. Just need an adapter cable to connect to the Samsung and you are good to go.

November 21, 2013

While they may not be the most glamorous or portable cameras out there, SLR's seem to be the most (if not the ONLY) dependable and refined cameras out there. Maybe in a few years I'll revisit the mirrorless world again…

</blockquote>

I wouldn't go that far. Fujis are not the only mirrorless game in town. If you want to get significantly smaller than the FX camera systems from Nikon take a look at the m43 cameras. Sure they DR of the sensor can't match a D600, Df, or D800, but you get a really small bodies, some with professional features, and there is some fantastic m43 native glass out there. As an owner of a D800 (and before that a D700) I can fully appreciate the size/weight issues.

I've handled the Fuji's and though they seemed great, the resulting system size (camera + lenses) is just not significantly less enough than my D800 + lenses to really make it worth it.

I've been slowly building a m43 kit to use when small and light at reduced DR is appropriate. The high quality (i.e., non-kit) m43 lenses are quite excellent.

At the moment I have a Panasonic GH-2, 12-35/2.8, and 75/1.8 and will soon be getting a 7.5mm fisheye and the 7-14/4 (I may also swap out the 12-35/2.8 for the recently-announced Olympus 12-40/2.8). The weakest IQ link in this lineup is the GH-2 - it's rather old. But the latest m43 cameras (Panasonic GX-7, GH-3, and the Olympus EM-1) have dynamic range that is approx. equal to the D700 (lots of caveats of course).

AF is fast and accurate with these latest m43 cameras too.

Of course these all have EVFs, but I find them to be just fine to use in practice.

So, there are lots of opinions on m43, but I'd give them a real look over before abandoning your search.

John

November 12, 2013

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=194625">Borgis Karl Johan</a>, Nov 11, 2013; 06:03 a.m.

The 45mm f2,8 AI-P is not a rubbishy little lens, who has the hybris to claim that? It is one of the lenses that Ming Thein accepts for the D800, I think it is plain swell if you look for a compact lens that "draws" smoothly, though perhaps not with extremely high resolution.

</blockquote>

Yes Borgis is correct, the 45/2.8 is hardly rubbish. It's almost always on my D800 and I use it when I don't need f/1.8 or AF. Center 2/3rds wide open is super sharp on my D800 with blur increasing toward the corners with the very far corners pretty blurry. Stopped down to f/5.6 and it's D800 sharp across the frame except for the very very far corners. At f/8 it's great all over (as any lens should be, but many are not).

It's biggest downfall is flare/ghosting when pointed into the sun - don't know if it's a coating issue or just the design of the lens.

I really wish Nikon would make more AI-P lenses - especially now that the Df is out and about.

I could handle a 20/2.8AI-P and a 105/2.8 AI-P that were reasonably sharp wide open (especially in the center) and sharp all over at f/5.6.

November 11, 2013

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=544169">Peter Shawhan</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 11, 2013; 11:50 a.m.

Hmmm -- 35 pages of comments so far, and this thread is still open. Obviously, Nikon has introduced a camera nobody is interested in.

</blockquote>

Yes, lots of discussion, but we'll see how many actually buy one. We photographers like to talk a lot about our gear, but that's not the same as plunking down some cash to purchase one.

I for one will wait - either for the price to drop on the Df or the arrival of the Df2: Either way I may have a long, long wait, but that's OK. In the mean time I'll "suffer" along with my D800 and m43 system.

November 9, 2013

Take a look at the Nikon F6, introduced in late 2004 when the rapid switch over to digital had already started earlier that year. Back in January 2005, the F6 was $2300, body only: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00AtmX" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00AtmX</a> Now almost 9 years later, Nikon can't possibly be selling a whole lot of new F6 bodies today, if any. Do we see a lower price due to the low demand? Absolutely not. You can buy a new one from B&H at $2450 now: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/352116-USA/Nikon_1799_F6_35mm_SLR_Autofocus.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a>

</blockquote>

But 2004 $$ are equal to about 24% more in 2013 dollars. So that F6 in today's dollars was introduced at $2,852, not even accounting for the increase in the Yen over that time. So it's effectively less expensive and last I could find (about a year ago) they are still making just a few per month. The tooling, etc. has long been paid for so they may be working off of stored up parts.

November 8, 2013

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=752258">m allegretta</a>, Nov 08, 2013; 12:02 p.m.

I like the exterior look and the intuitive dials. The 16MP sensor is a good choice for low light work and plenty sharp. I would pair this body with a 28/2.8, 50/1.4 or 105/2.5 Ais. Except for sensor cleaning and old lens designation, I would not even bother with the other menu selections. All you need to adjust is ISO, SHUTTER and FOCUS - thats IT!

</blockquote>

If I were to eventually get a Df, I would pair it with:

16/3.5 AI

20/2.8 D (or AIS)

45/2.8P

either 90/3.5 CV, 105/2.5 AIS, or 135/3.5 AIS depending on the situation.

and

180/4 CV (if I still have it)

For a pretty darned compact and excellent kit.

Just waiting for the price of the Df to drop to something more reasonable (or a sale of some sort), which may be a while. In the mean time I'll make due with my D800 and m43 gear.

November 6, 2013

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 06, 2013; 07:49 p.m. No, it has no fine-tuning; that's not the same thing as not requiring it. There is a little screw which is used to adjust the position of the focusing screen (look at the bayonet from the lens side, camera top side up, on the right side of the mirror box there is a screw). So it is adjustable.

</blockquote>

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a picture of this screw? How do you know it's for adjusting the focusing screen?

November 6, 2013

I think one of the reasons for 16MP in the Df is that it is much more forgiving of focus errors compared to the 24MP or 36MP sensors (as opposed to the inaccurate statement by many that 16MP is much more suitable to older glass). Mirror and focusing screen alignment are just as relevant if not way more so now with the Df as it was for film SLRs. It's far easier to see missed focus at 16MP digital than 16MP scanned slide film.

I only hope that the Df has an adjustable/shim-able focusing screen - likely not though. Perhaps this part of the high cost of the Df - i.e., the mirror and focusing screen have been calibrated at the factory in Japan to much higher standards. I know the my AF dot (hence mirror and AF sensors) consistently focus behind on ALL of my lenses with the difference in the viewfinder image being indistinguishable between the proper focuses and back-focused images recorded by the sensor.

I will have to give the Df a go at the local pro shop with some of my fast glass when it gets one (or more likely when the Nikon rep shows up with a demo model).

November 6, 2013

<blockquote><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 06, 2013; 12:28 p.m.

Personally I would love a very compact FX body with modern design features - I would forgo the ergonomics for the gain in compactness.

</blockquote>

You'll never get exactly what you want unless you have the resources to commission Nikon to tailor make a camera for you. Otherwise, something closely resembles what you are asking for has already existed for over a year. Ever heard of the D600 and its successor the D610?

I know, some people complain that the D600 is too small, and perhaps some people feel that it is not small enough.

</blockquote>

No, the camera I'm talking about doesn't exist and it's not the D600 or D610. I also realize that there will never be a camera I exactly want, but I can still express my desire for one. I don't feel that the D610 is that much smaller than my D800 to make a big enough difference. Now if we got a 16MP FX camera the size and weight of the FM3A that would be far closer to what I'd be looking for.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by john_hinkey