manh_le

<p>I noticed this same problem on my D700 recently. I suspect this has to do with my most recent firmware update, because I notice my 2.8/45 mm lens showed up as 48 mm on the EXIF. I check a number of EXIF whose photos were taken with the original firmware 1.0 and the recorded info matched the lens' focal length. I also happened that I've never had this problem with the original firmware 1.0.</p>

<p>Natalie,</p>

<p>Based on the information you gave I'd say go for D700 and a 1.4/50 mm lens. Whether the lens is AF or manual it's up to you. I doubt you would regret.</p>

<p>FX is significant only to those who shoot with prime lens at 50 mm or less, because DX will turn them into short tele photo lens.</p>

<p>Good luck to your decision.</p>

<p>Bela,</p>

<p>I bought my 3.5/43-86 mm lens, s/n 528476, last year for my D40x camera body and it worked wonder. Your image has proved this. I can't mount this lens onto my D700 camera body, however. If I remember correctly, this lens was redesigned and the serial number is at about eight thousands or so. So, it's good to know that the second version of this lens does mount onto the D700 camera body. I had a choice between the first and second version of this lens and I went with the first version.</p>

<p>Since you mentioned the 2.8/24-70 mm lens, I was surprised and disappointed to find that my copy of the 2.8/24-70 lens performed worser than my 1.4/50 mm AF-D and 1.8/85 mm AF-D in terms of speed and accuracy. This happened a few times at low light conditions. By low light I mean EV values between 4 and 7 at 100 ASA.</p>

<p>As a walking combo, the weight of my lens and camera are bearable with either 24-70/2.8 and D40x or D700 and 45/2.8. So far the 24-70/2.8 and D700 are too bulky and heavy as a walk around tool.</p>

The card split ratio between photo and video is about 1/3.

 

Yes, I did bring along a 2.5" USB hard drive, but it wasn't as useful as I had thought.

 

No, I couldn't bring the laptop because of the space/weight constrains and the travel conditions. If you are interested to know, then it would better be described in the travel section.

I crashed yesterday due to the jet lag since I've just came back from a five week travel. Yes, the trip was equivalent to the wilderness and, without having a laptop, it took that many SDHC cards mostly due to the HD video. When we left US we had only 10 SDHC cards. The rest of the cards we accumulated during the trip because we ran out of card at the end of the second week.

 

BTW, I've just found out that the CF converter did not work on D200. So, it might not work on D700.

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29211006

 

Thank y'all for your constructive answers/comments/suggestions.

I'm trying to save spaces and weights in my camera bag as I always carry couple film cameras together with the DSLR (and films of course). Also, my video camera uses the SDHC cards as well.

I'm considering the D700 body. However, as I like and have invested quite a bit in SD cards, I wonder if SD cards

would work with the D700 using the CF card converter. Has anyone here tried this combination?

 

Yes, I'm aware of the writing speed difference between SD and CF cards. As a single lens single shot user I can

live with a somewhat degraded card writing performance for as long as it is on par with that of the D40x.

 

Thanks in advance for your comments/suggestions.

I'm aware of the Moire pattern and the anti aliasing filter which is also called low pass filter. Without getting into the

actual physics, the low pass filter is used to remove the aliased (or jagged diagonal edge). This in effect makes the

image looked blurred and so the image needs the sharpened filter. Removing the low pass filter means the sharpened

filter is no longer required.

 

A side effect to having the sharpened filter is that the lens need not be of high quality. The image is sharpened

anyway !

Thank you all for your responses.

 

Quite a few years ago, I've read about the low-pass filter being on the light path and its contribution to the degradation

of the image quality. It's been a while until I come across the one line mentioning the lack of such filter in the Sigma

DP2.

 

I don't want to start yet another film versus digital debate here, but film is the only reference I know until last year.

With

film I can tell the image quality differences between various brand names as well as film types. With digital it looks

like most pictures are very much the same, according to my view anyway. So, I wonder if this low-pass filter has

anything to do with this image quality. For example, the sensors from D3/D700/D300/D90 produce pictures with

similar image quality; so as those from D2/D200/D80/D60/D40. By similar image quality I mean unmanipulated

pictures. Apart from the sensors and processors differences, I

wonder if lacking the low-pass filter would produce a better picture?

 

By means of better picture, refer to the following quote from the Sigma DP2 : "Since the moiré is not generated, use

of a low-pass filter is not needed because full information of light and color can be captured with three-dimensional

feeling."

Does anybody know if Nikon has any DSLR which has no low-pass filter similarly to that of Sigma DP2 ? Or, DP2 is

the only digital camera that has no low-pass filter?

 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092305sigma_dp2.asp

Dima,

 

What you saw in the view finder was the actual reading of the light meter. Pointing your lens to different

scenes will have different readings. This should not be confused with the exposure settings on your camera.

In the M mode you have full control of the exposure.

Regarding the "A" setting on the aperture ring. There is none. You can set your camera mode to either A (i.e. aperture) or M (i.e. manual). In A

mode you can set the aperture and the camera set the shutter speed. In M mode, you have to set both aperture and shutter speed.

I don't have D40 but D40x. According to www.bythom.com, they are very close to each other. So, my experience is my on D40x and hope it would

be applicable to the D40.

 

First, mounting the 45/2.8 P lens onto the D40x is tight. So tight that I thought it was not possible, because I don't want to damage my lens mount.

To make long story short, I'm able to mount the lens onto my D40x after gently and firmly jiggling the lens a little bit.

 

Second, I find mounting the 45/2.8 P onto D40x body defeats its original view angle. So, I've never actually used this lens on D40x body. I used

28/2.8 lens instead; its effective view angle is closed to that of 42mm focal length. A bit wider but it is close to 45mm focal length.

With FE and MD-12, the loud noise produced by the motor drive convinced me that the film was advanced, but it did not. I did get couple blank

rolls similarly to your case. I found out that the blank roll was caused by the improper coupling between the motor drive and the camera. I

realized this on the second time, when I inserted the MD-12 at some tenth of frame. The first ten frames or so had proper images recorded on the

film, subsequent frames were all blank, including subsequent rolls of film. The very first time I had a blank roll I did not know why, because I

mount the MD-12 on the very first frame. The only way I could ensure proper coupling between the MD-12 and film body was to mount it before

inserting the roll of film. This way, I can see the film staff turning when the motor drive is in motion and the camera back open. I would never

mount the MD-12 mid roll.

 

This improper coupling is the only drawback I found so far with my now FM3A and MD-12. An inconvenience I can live with because I know

what to, and not to, do.

 

Yes, I understand the frustration and disappointment when seeing the blank roll of film. Hope that you find this info useful in some way.

If you can afford this storage, then it'd be your solution.

 

http://www.digitalfoci.com/picture_porter_elite.html

Wow !!! I thought my 6x9 is good until I see these photos !! Thanks for sharing !

Wow !!! Beautiful photos !! Thanks for sharing !

Wow !!! So beautiful !! Thanks for sharing !

I don't know if the File->Transfer option in Picture Project (PP) is the same or different to the software Transfer. However, using this option in PP has never crashed PP (yet). The Transfer software crashed very very often.

On Mac and with D40X, it's best to use Pitcure Project (PP) and View NX (VNX) together. PP for downloading photos from camera to computer. VNX for all the rest.

 

If you shoot with NEF format then add the third software Capture NX.

 

The three software work well together on a 2 GB RAM and dual core CPU machine.

"I'm a zone focus kind of guy."

 

Jim, you're all set to go.

 

I bought my AIS lens for that precise reason. Below is the photo taken with 28/2.8 AIS, zone focus, zone meter (i.e. guesstimated). You can see the EXIF for more info.<div></div>

"Oh I can manually focus, but some lenses are completely incompatible with the D40. That's my worry."

 

The D40x can handle most older lens. For more info see Thom's chart here:

 

http://bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm

Larry, you've a good point. As I mentioned in my previous post, it depends on the photography style. In my case, the FX prime lens is on my D40x 90% of the time. The kit zoom lens is used from time to time despite its quality is good.

If you can focus your lens manually and read the light independently of your camera's metering system, then you're all set to go. It isn't any worser than operating a classic camera which has no metering capability.

 

Given the above is true then getting the D40x makes sense, because it's the cheapest (in price) camera with a very good image quality (usable at ISO 1600). In terms of price and image quality, the D60 and D80 don't have any advantages over the D40x.

 

Depending on your photography style, choosing the prime lens (over the kit zoom lens), especially the AIS, may alleviate lots of pain particularly in the short and medium ranges. For long range, the VR feature from the kit zoom lens is nice to have.

 

Hope this helps!