Andrew Garrard

<blockquote>Pan shots: I've done very little of this kind of shooting, but I believe the fastest AF is with AF-S single point using the middle AF sensor. The camera will not adjust focus during a shot anyways so AF-S or AF-C won't matter so much for tracking during a pan shot, just don't delay firing the shutter once the camera achieves focus.</blockquote> <p>I don't claim to be an expert either, although I've tried this a few times. However, I'd suggest using AF-C, tracking with the subject (keeping the camera in focus), and pressing the shutter gently as you follow the subject (keep panning after you release the shutter). As far as I'm aware, some cameras <i>do</i> keep moving focus during the exposure - and certainly do between the mirror lift and the exposure time. I'd practise on the street, first. If you try to pan as the subject corners, my experience is that <i>some</i> part of the subject tends to look sharp (it's determining what part that's hard) - and obviously it makes the car a bit more dramatic.<br /> <br /> Good luck!</p>

<blockquote>I find it much easier to follow erratic action using the rear screen - especially kids and pets. It's nearly intuitive to pan with motion, and terrific for my mixed up right-handed/left-eye-dominant style. Finally, I can keep both eyes open while following action. And it's great for no-look or roughly aimed high or low angle shooting.</blockquote> <p>Lex, I think that may be a function of you being left-eye-dominant, although I certainly sympathise that this is a common problem for cameras with finders. With a dominant right eye (in fact, with a right eye that has keratoconus after dodgy laser surgery) I'm actually better with a finder diopter adjustment alongside my open left eye. I've never had a problem panning with the camera to the eye. Panning smoothly at arm's length is something I've always found tricky, especially sitting down. I do value the idea of a tiltable finder for macro, waist-level shooting and over-the-head shots - I keep meaning to use my F5 with the prism off, and I got on well with a Rolleiflex - but I tend to use the fixed LCD live view under duress (I don't always trust my D800's AF) rather than for preference.</p> <blockquote>I like the entry level mirrorless models for the incredible value - IQ equal to any dSLR with the same sensor, in a smaller, lighter and less expensive package. But the overall handling isn't equal to a well designed dSLR or optical viewfinder camera.</blockquote> <p>I'm with you except for the "less expensive". They certainly didn't used to be. I've just checked my default dealer in the UK, and the D3200 (okay, last year's model) lists for £249 (including Nikon's £30 cashback). The cheapest mirrorless is a Q7, at £279; the cheapest micro 4/3 and (old) Eos M come in at £299. It should be cheaper to make these things, but the bulk manufacture of DSLRs still seems to be having an effect on keeping the price down. With a kit lens, the UK price for a D3200 seems to be £319 (incl. £30 cashback), and the X-A1 with a kit lens is £359. The Nikon probably has the better sensor, though I acknowledge the X-A1's size advantage. I'm also not blown away by the size of the collapsible kit lens that Nikon are shipping these days - I was hoping for something near the size of the Panasonic 14-42 PZ - but every little helps. The Coolpix A, on the other hand, <i>is</i>... "optimistically" priced.<br /> <br /> As for adapted SLR bodies, I do have a Bessa R LSM body developed exactly this way (though mine is one with a rangefinder). But Voigtlander had the advantage that they were aiming for lenses that were designed for mirrorless. Try this with the F mount and you end up with something that looks like the Pentax K-01. I do know someone who wanted one (unsure if he actually bought it), but I'm not aware of it being an amazing success, and the reviews were not kind.</p>

<p>Does <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-70- 300mm-f-4.5-5.6G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D90-versus-AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6G-IF-ED-on- Nikon-D5300___262_439_262_919">this</a> help? Sadly, I don't think DxO have tested the 300 f/4, though I can vouch for its goodness.</p>

You paid HOW much? For what it's worth, I'm paranoid and have never risked cleaning myself (also because my house is full of cat hair), so I've always taken my cameras to Nikon UK - who aren't ridiculously expensive, if you don't mind waiting a week. My theory is that if it goes wrong, they're best placed to replace things. They did apparently scratch my D700 sensor in the past - not enough to be visible, but they reported it during later cleaning, and they're the only ones to touch the sensor unless I'm having a big memory failure - but I've had no complaints since. It helps that I work near Richmond - I plan to drop my D800 off soon, and I'll probably let them do the BIOS update to save the faff. I wouldn't necessarily claim a perfectly clean sensor afterwards, but I tend to steer clear of tiny apertures anyway, which hides minor problems. It appears, though I can't guarantee, that Nikon might do the first cleaning free. But given the state of dust and hair in my house, the chances of a cleaning elsewhere doing worse than I could are small. The one time I tried an air duster it did a lot more harm than good.

<p>Owen - I think you missed an important part of the lens specification...<br /> <br /> Just chiming in with another vote in favour of the motorized (older) Tamron 90mm f/2.8. It's done me proud, and doubles as a slightly slow portrait lens. The front element is deeply recessed, which has an annoying effect on the working distance, the ergonomics are a bit iffy, and the LoCA is a bit worse than the Tokina - but the combination of price, range and performance is hard to beat, at least if you want the convenience of a macro lens rather than adaptors. I ended up using one on holiday with my D800, because my zoom lens wasn't doing the sensor justice. The 85mm micro-Nikkor has VR in its favour, but it's a bit slower and I've vaguely heard that the optics aren't quite what you'd hope for (but please find your own reviews and don't take my word for it).<br /> <br /> But if getting closer matters more than convenience, tubes/bellows and diopters have it. Good luck.</p>

<p>I think Nikon may have missed their chance with the tie-in to mobiles - several big names are already there - but there's a chance. While I've seen a few out and about, I really don't know how well the CAMERA(phone) devices - S4 Zoom, PureView, etc. - sell. They certainly compromise the pocketability of the phone, and probably the handling of the camera. Phones certainly killed the budget compact, often with decent image quality, but getting "big sensor" performance out of a pocketable device is (currently) hard. Though I'm sure people are trying various novel solutions, and the various software depth-of-field effects can be effective when they work. As for video, Nikon have never really been a video company - if Canon and Sony aren't getting it (more) right, I'm not surprised that Nikon struggle. That said, you could get pretty good video just by taking a BlackMagic system into the field, or one of the high-end Panasonics.<br /> <br /> Peter: I'll bite. Not that I'm going to persuade you to change what you want from a camera, but just as a discussion of the problems with camera design...</p> <dl> <dt>With a mirror, so that the user can compose through optical viewfinder. No power-hungry-slow-weird-color-expensive EVF, thank you very much.</dt> <dd>But you want a "bigger and better optical finder"? You can do "bigger but dimmer" simply with optics; FX mirrors have more light hitting them, so they're inherently doing better on the brightness/size factor than DX ones. You can do somewhat "better" than the D3x00 series just by using a pentaprism - but it adds cost and weight. I'd actually vaguely like to see someone try an FX camera with a pentamirror as a weight-saving measure (the big lump of glass probably contributes more to the overhead compared with mirrorless than everything else). Plus I want to see someone try to make a collapsible finder...</dd> <dt>Without any screen on the back or top - they take space and drain a lot of power. I would review my images on the computer anyway.</dt> <dd>Periodically, people try compact digital cameras with no LCD, to reduce cost and size. They rarely sell, just because image proofing is so useful compared with the film days. Of course, they only drain power when they're <i>on</i>, so you don't have to lose out on the battery life, unlike many mirrorless systems. Or we could consider an EVF-only design but we've already ruled that out. You can disagree, but I think live review has been the single biggest benefit of digital cameras, and I doubt anything without one will sell - unless perhaps you believe Thom Hogan's idea with using a smart phone as a display. My experience has been that the chances of that solution working perfectly are small, but I'm a pessimistic software engineer, so what do I know?</dd> <dt>Without AF motor, to save space. Or with it, I don't mind as long as it is cheap.</dt> <dd>Agreed, this could save a small amount of space/weight and cost. Assuming you're happy with the additional size and cost of AF-S lenses, but since most lenses are AF-S these days, that may not be an issue. I almost expected the D600 (because it's "junior") and Df (because it's light weight) to be lacking a motor.</dd> <dt>With small buffer, to reduce the price.</dt> <dd>RAM is pretty cheap these days, especially if you really want a small pixel count. But I'll read this as "don't prioritise a big buffer". Which I'm sure will make the D7100 design team feel better. :-)</dd> <dt>With dials on top for speed, aperture, and ISO.</dt> <dd>These do add significantly to size and cost. I've said far more than anyone wants to listen to about the ergonomics of the Df, so I won't comment further on this - but if your ideal camera is a yet-smaller Df, this makes sense.</dd> <dt>With slow, low-power processor to save price and increase battery life.</dt> <dd>Again, like "don't prioritise the buffer". Sounds reasonable, although I'm a little unclear on how many different designs Nikon actually use at any given point. Presumably there's a low speed grade, and with low resolution I doubt anyone will notice...</dd> <dt>With the cheapest and slowest AF module, 11 AF points are more than enough.</dt> <dd>Canon have been slow to add AF points (though they've been playing with putting them on the sensor), but I guess with a low pixel count, focus-and-recompose is more viable. I think some of your requests are going to bump the price up, though, so people may be less willing to put up with low-end AF (not that this hurt the 5D2 or 6D much). I don't really know how much the AF modules cost...</dd> <dt>Without video, thank you for this.</dt> <dd>Why? It really costs nothing to add, unless Nikon design a completely new sensor and image processor that can't do live view especially for this camera. The Df doesn't have it as a philosophy, but I really don't see the down side. Except in combination with the lack of LCD, but I've argued against that too. Don't get me wrong - I almost never shoot video, and didn't miss it on my D700. But if you're in that once-in-a-lifetime situation, it doesn't hurt to have it.</dd> <dt>With spot metering, so the user can decide what the exposure should be.</dt> <dd>Depending on your definition of "spot" (some meters have more sample points than others), it seems rare to exclude this these days. Which is nice - I remember missing it from my Eos 300D.</dd> <dt>With the cheapest contemporary 10MP+ sensor.<dt> <dd>That may be the 24MP one that Nikon are shipping in vast quantities in other cameras, but point taken. Clearly a lot of people would still be happy with the D7000 sensor.</dd> <dt>And so on - anything reducing weight, price, and power consumption.</dt> <dd>Laudable aims, though I'm not sure that the "manual controls" and "better finder" are compatible with them. You're happy with a D3300-style plastic body, then? Do you actually want less power consumption, or would you be happy with a bigger battery? How do you feel about integrated flash? "Cheap" can mean mirrorless (fewer moving parts), but "low power" usually means phase-detect AF - though I guess someone might manage to design a sensor with on-chip phase-detect that doesn't power up the main sensor until needed. (You could then have a tunnel viewfinder that just marks the AF points, rather than being TTL.)</dd> </dl> <p>It's nice to dream. I don't think Nikon could make what you want for the price that you want, even if they sold a lot of them, but that doesn't make it less valid to know what you want. Maybe Nikon will listen when/if the Df gets replaced. Though I'd always imagined the Df design as making sense for landscapes, and the choice of Nikon's lowest-res sensor with the least dynamic range at minimum ISO seemed like an odd mix for landscape shooting.<br /> <br /> I'm mostly happy with what I've got already (the camera, not the credit card bill), so I won't make a counter-bid here. Well, I have plenty of requests, but most of them are BIOS updates. Mirrorless is a fine concept, as is a cut-down "traditional" DSLR, but I'm not holding my breath from Nikon. On the other hand, Leica have just made (very small numbers off) their first new film camera in several years, so maybe I shouldn't be shocked if Nikon announce an F7 at Photokina. (Nonetheless, I would be!)</p>

<p>Thanks, Ilkka - interesting to hypothesize, anyway! I've heard less about people complaining about the AF in the D7100 (or, of course, the other 24MP DX cameras that don't have AF fine tune), but that may be a function of the effective aperture/reduced width of the sensor. I certainly agree that the D800 is worth the trouble.<br /> <br /> At the risk of not having RTFM, is the infinity thing an issue with the lens or the camera? I'm hoping the dock can fix it, though I guess I don't often need fast autofocus to infinity!</p>

<p>Lens flare is most common where the sun is directly in the frame (or just out of the frame), and therefore provides a much brighter light source than what you're actually shooting - this means that even reflections of it within the lens (which are much dimmer than the sun itself) are visible against the darker image that you're shooting. In this case, if it was much brighter outside than inside, I believe you: it could be that you're seeing an internal reflection of the gap in the curtains.<br /> <br /> This assumes it goes away when you take other photos, of course! In the same situation, closing the curtains would cure it, and using a hood if the bright area is just outside the frame might help.</p>

<p>Well, Adorama are showing the D800 new for about $3000, and KEH have an "excellent" (but not "like new") one for $2370. If it helps, a UK dealer is listing a used D800 at £1599 for 9000 actuations and £1499 for 41000 actuations (the absolute prices are a bit high for the US because of tax and the UK...), so the increased count doesn't seem to affect the value much.<br /> <br /> I agree with Les that I wouldn't worry about 14,000 actuations "wearing out" the camera - the D800's shutter is rated for 200,000 actuations (vs 400,000 for the D4, but up from 100,000 on the D600 and 150,000 on the D700). It does seem a little on the high side for a test unit, but then the D800 isn't exactly a recent launch.<br /> <br /> When you say the "trap is in bad shape", what exactly do you mean? If it's just the packaging, I'd not lose sleep, and enjoy a very good camera. (But check for the autofocus issue and update the BIOS.)</p>

<p>I was, obviously, surprised by the appearance of the Df. I would have been much <i>more</i> surprised by an attempt to do retro full-frame mirrorless from Nikon - at least there are lots of "old-style" Nikon SLR users out there (e.g. <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cdpE">here</a>), whereas Nikon's S-mount range aren't exactly ubiquitous. Besides, Leica have already gone there. Mirrorless + old manual lenses is probably not so useful, especially - as Dieter says - with the sensor cover issues that have recently been covered on LensRentals.<br /> <br /> If Nikon <i>do</i> produce a full-frame (or at least, larger than CX) mirrorless camera, I'd be very surprised if they made it bigger by going "retro" with it. And I speak as someone who'd quite like to own an X100s.</p>

<p>Ilkka - you may be right. I've certainly had more trouble with AF on my D800E than the D700 ever gave me - if you tell me it's likely to be more than the resolution and the per-pixel detail, I'm not going to argue. Though it's certainly a pain. I do notice some other weird issues - particularly, I believe (without an optical bench) that I have quite extreme field curvature out of my 14-24, and the 135 f/2 that I used to own was extremely difficult to focus and had heavy LoCA issues - more so than others seem to report. I'd wondered for a while whether my D800's flange distance was off (as someone once reported in these fora), but it's been repeatedly checked out (and then checked out again after I explained to Nikon UK that "field curvature" did not mean "barrel distortion"). When it works, it's an amazing bit of kit. Fortunately, I can usually get it to work well enough, although I seem to be fighting more than just the "perfect technique" required for 36MP...<br /> <br /> I believe the DC lenses are known to be a problem for the AF system. I don't think it's a telecentricity issue like the 80-200 - I suspect it's more to do with the residual LoCA; the manual does say something about not trusting autofocus with the DC setting at non-neutral. Good luck - I get the impression that most customers are happier than I was with mine.<br /> <br /> Mike: I believe Canon at least let you set a different AF offset at different zoom settings, which Nikon don't. Sigma have a full grid of values, which seems sensible, though I admit that I run out of knowledge before understanding how the lens could have more settings than the camera (or maybe the camera just assumes it can get everything from the lens - I really must read the AF-D documentation some time). The more flexible this is, the more of a pain for the user setting it is - which is why I wish someone would get around to automating it.</p>

<p>Okay... well, the HDMI situation explains it. Good luck finding a reader - it's certainly a minority of people who record HDMI direct to a PC, so it's not default functionality.<br /> <br /> As for the connection, I would be wary of assuming that the video camera portion of Canon talks closely to the DSLR portion, just because they're doing similar things. The DSLR group has quite good connectivity, and has had for a long time. For video cameras, remote control may be a relatively new or high-end feature, although I'm sure it's making its way to the cheap end of the range. Large companies tend to have quite big gaps between divisions (I speak as a Samsung employee, though I'm sure not all cultures are the same). The compact and DSLR divisions of Canon and Nikon took a long time to talk to each other too.<br /> <br /> I get the impression that the HFR100 in particular doesn't have this functionality, and I couldn't find reference to it, but I could be wrong.</p>

<p>Hi Matt,<br /> <br /> With no direct experience but a bit of technical background... firstly, thank you for the reference to the solutions you've found.<br /> <br /> I doubt Canon are being facetious - any remote control has generally been considered quite a high-end feature, so I'm not surprised you have issues. I don't have any experience of that model, however. For remote control from the PC, if there's no obvious software to do it, it probably isn't designed to. Have you found some indication that it claims to support this?<br /> <br /> Silly question, <i>how</i> are you connecting your HDMI devices to your PC? If you have an HDMI recorder card, I don't see why it shouldn't just work (at least in playback, if not during recording). If you're connecting to the HDMI outputs on your graphics card, bear in mind that they're (usually) <i>just</i> outputs - there's nothing there capable of listening to an incoming signal.<br /> <br /> So the Nikon is working okay for you? I've had a quick browse through a HFR100 instruction manual, and couldn't spot anything about it giving a live feed of the sensor to the HDMI or USB outputs. You may well be able to <i>use</i> it remotely, whether via USB (you should be able to download stuff that's recorded, yes?) or using something like an Eye-Fi, but having a live view of what's going on seems harder.<br /> <br /> But maybe it's capable, and I'm just missing the description that says it. I presume if you connect the Vixia to your TV you don't get a live feed while recording? If you do, that's your solution (and you may be able to find a remote viewing screen with an HDMI input, although probably not within your budget). On the other hand, HDMI capture cards for PCs seem to be reasonably cheap, though $50 is pushing it, so if you do get live video from the Vixia, I'd look at that (and prod the buttons on the camcorder manually).<br /> <br /> Apologies if this is stating the obvious - just ruling out some problems in advance of the more informed posters. :-) Good luck.</p>

<p>Mike: I don't think <i>any</i> of my lenses hit absolutely perfect focus on my D800e without adjustment. I'd have sent back the whole lot by now if I had your requirements! There's a different optical path for the AF module and the sensor - there's no surprise that there's a difference, and it tends to relate to the telecentricity of the lens (which I gather is why the 80-200 AF-D has such issues). Some of my lenses are nearer to "perfect" than others, of course. My D700 seemed to be much more forgiving, probably because of the resolution difference (and because of the strong low-pass filter throwing away some of the remaining resolution).<br /> <br /> It remains a mystery to me why the fine tuning needs any user interaction. There's perfectly good contrast-detect AF, so it should be possible to point the camera at a target and let it sort itself out while toggling between AF modes automatically. Another one for the BIOS to-do list...</p>

<p>It's certainly true that a mirrorless camera can be made with fewer moving parts, which tends to make them cheaper. Like the V3. (Oh, wait.) There's sometimes an issue that relying on live view introduces sensor noise, and it certainly affects power drain, but I don't deny that the design has advantages. At some point, I'll get myself a 5x4, which is, of course, mirrorless.<br /> <br /> I'm wary of comparing a low aperture zoom with a fast lens and claiming that the difference is the mirror. I do think there's little benefit to mirrorless at the telephoto end (where there's no benefit to having a retrofocal system that would otherwise hit the mirror - although sensors that benefit from telecentricity counter this somewhat). Honestly, I don't know how much a shorter camera helps when it's in use - a shorter camera in stored configuration is another matter, but I've been arguing for a while that Nikon might like to think about lenses that collapse into the mirror box (and have the camera store the mirror up). Obviously, not every lens would fit, but having recently seen a "collapsable" 18-55 Nikkor, it was hardly "small" in the style of my Panasonic 14-42 PZ. Pentax's limited range, on the other hand, are actually small. I've been vaguely hoping that someone will implement diffractive optics in a collapsible lens to make the result thinner...<br /> <br /> For shooting wide angles, mirrorless <i>does</i> matter for size, but - again allowing for telecentricity - I'm not sure how much. I'm not going to deny that my LSM Voigtlander 35mm f/2 is tiny, but I doubt it would perform well on a digital sensor. On the other hand, I'm not sure that a big sensor is so necessary for a wide angle - at least, a wide aperture may not be. Maybe the biggest disadvantage would be limits to dynamic range. Still, maybe the way forward is really tiny cameras, for wide-angle. GoPro, anyone?<br /> <br /> I see the RX100 as a really big argument against the 1 series, but they're still limited by their sensor size. The lens actually doesn't test all that well either (though neither do 1-series lenses), according to DxO. Fingers crossed the lens from the RX100 III will be a step up. DPReview's samples make it quite tempting, next time (if ever) I have disposable income. The "large sensor compact" argument is probably less convincing as the cost of the sensor and lens go up - the RX1 is a very much harder sell than the D800.</p>

<p>I found that using the AF fine tune on the 35 f/1.4 sorted out one focal distance, but not others. I believe I'm not alone in finding this. I'm told the dock fixes it - I have it, but still haven't found free time to use it. I need to re-do all my AF fine tuning, really - but the Sigma dock is more flexible than the single number that Nikon lets you set.<br /> <br /> I have several images shot with the 35mm which are hugely out of focus. I've been using live view with it until I get the chance to set it up properly - that obviously avoids the problem.</p>

<p>The 85 f/1.8 is a <i>bit</i> better at subject isolation than the 105 f/2.8, but generally it comes down to the distance to the subject and the distance to the background. Depth of field is generally mostly controlled by relative aperture, for the same subject framing - if the background is near to the foreground, it will be blurred more by an f/1.8 lens than an f/2.8 lens (wide open) no matter the focal length. Distant background blur is affected by focal length (because you proportionately zoom the blurry background more with a longer lens), and the numbers eventually cancel out so that it's the absolute size of the aperture that counts. And 85mm/1.8 is not much bigger than 105mm/2.8. So if you like blurry ears, the 85mm probably has a more significant effect than if you like blurry mountains.<br /> <br /> There's an argument that the "classic" portrait lengths are between the film equivalent of 85mm and 135mm - depending on how much of the subject is included. Longer than 135mm (such as the 150mm+ that you get from using a 105mm macro on a DX body) arguably makes portraits look a bit "flat" - the nose is typically shrunk, the ears enlarged compared with a closer view (face-on, obviously). Frankly, I find the effect minor, and I'm more worried about being so far from the subject that I have to shout - Joe McNally uses a 200mm f/2 for portraits, which makes me feel justified in doing the same. Still, if this bothers you, maybe the 85mm has some merits over the 105.<br /> <br /> However, I tend to want as much working distance as I can get with a macro lens (with the occasional exception of wanting to shoot straight down on a table), so I'd take the 105 over the 90mm. As I said, I actually went with the 150mm, which was my best compromise between a long lens and still having f/2.8 isolation (this was before the Sigma 180mm came out, but there's a big premium for that lens).<br /> <br /> Anyway. No advice, and it will depend on your own style of shooting. Just commenting on the pros and cons of these lenses.</p>

<p>If Nikon made an FX mirrorless at the moment, they'd be in exactly the situation that Sony are in - no native lenses, quite expensive, not that small. (Although they might not screw up the raw files as Sony have.) I do believe that on-sensor phase-detect, or something similar, might be coming - existing DSLR mirror focus systems are clearly sometimes struggling, but on the other hand current phase-detect systems can't quite compete with moving subjects in the way that an SLR AF system can. The same applies to metering - the sensors in the finder-based metering modules are much bigger than the main sensor sites, and I'm sure they have a higher dynamic range; I would not be surprised if this relates to the level of flash support in mirrorless systems (you need a very fast response to get a pre-flash right). Sensor-based systems may get there eventually. So if Nikon tried to go mirrorless to go "smaller", no, I don't think that's sensible, for the reasons Antonio stated. If they do it because existing mirror systems are reaching the end of the line, then maybe. But it's going to have to be a damn good EVF both in response time and dynamic range. (However, I don't think that adding an EVF to a prism finder is technically all that hard. Canon have put LEDs in the finder for years - you just need a lot more of them!)<br /> <br /> Jose: Nikon have hired ergonomics masters, and then kept the formula with minor tweaks. While I appreciate what devices like the Df and V1 can do, they do not give the impression of being designed by someone with usability training. And yes, I've had courses in designing user interfaces. Not that I'm claiming that designing a good camera interface is easy, but some mistakes are avoidable - and even obvious. As you say, they're very conservative with the bodies that do have a good design - and the F5 change was an emergency response to Canon, who were heavily competing with the F4. As for the compatibility of the F mount, there is not a single camera on the market that can use every F mount lens properly, and there are a significant number of F mount lenses that do not work properly on common current bodies. The table of "small print" for compatibility is large. Yes, they've done a good job of incremental updates, but there have been a lot of false steps along the way. I don't like that Canon made everything before 1987 unusable, but I have to say that everything since "just works". Now, if only Leica had autofocus...<br /> <br /> But I'm sure Nikon will continue to produce very good products (and I'm happy with mine). I'm not actually a hater, I'm just not in awe of their every decision.</p>

<p>Belatedly... I used to use my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro as a short portrait lens (I <i>did</i> have a 135 f/2). I eventually got frustrated enough at the lack of isolation that I got a Samyang 85mm f/1.4. Shortly after, Nikon came out with the 85 f/1.8 AF-S, which I've recently acquired, because manual focus is a pain when subjects don't hold still.<br /> <br /> I tend not to care much about short, fast lenses. You still don't get that much subject separation, and the wide angle means camera shake, and therefore shutter speed, is usually less of a problem. I do care about fast, long lenses.<br /> <br /> However, I agree that 85 f/1.8 is only a bit faster than the 105 f/2.8 when it comes to subject separation. I'm not totally sure I'd justify having the 50mm prime as well as the 85mm, but if we're talking the f/1.8 versions then neither is exactly big. (The AF-D 50mm is pretty tiny, unless you compare it to the manual focus versions.)<br /> <br /> For three lenses, I'd probably not argue with Dieter, with the proviso that I don't really care about normal zooms. So actually, I'd probably go 10-20, 70-300, and plug the gap with a 50mm (or 60mm f/2 macro). But that's just me. Maybe 10-20, 18-140 and the 105mm macro would be more flexible (I'd want more reach than 105mm), but you'd be shooting short portraits at a slow aperture.<br /> <br /> Actually, I'd a) save up, b) end up with a large credit card bill, and c) get a bigger camera bag. I'm so terrible at travelling light I don't know why I'm even trying to help!</p>

<p>A friend has a big Benbo. I've played with it. Freaky thing to get used to, but I have to admit it's flexible, if you can work out where to position everything. He's not fond of it because it fell over on his foot and took a chunk out. It's not as stable as you'd hope for its weight, but then I was comparing to a big (but still much lighter) RRS CF tripod which costs a lot more. If I'm going low angle, I'd either reverse the column on my Manfrotto or do the same on my REXi L. Dangly columns are convenient, but possibly overkill if you just want to get low.<br /> <br /> Or, as Michael suggested, just use a bean bag. It depends what you're trying to do, how low you're trying to get, and how much control you need over the orientation of the camera - although the prism gets in the way, sometimes hanging the camera below the tripod lets you get lower just because you don't have the height of the head between you and the ground. (Thinks... I guess I could get slightly lower by hanging my Manfrotto 393 - insert your favourite gimbal head here - below the legs, because most of the "head" is above the camera but the camera could still be prism-up...)</p>

<p>It doesn't sound like a "show hidden files" thing. In fact, I've no idea why Windows would try to hide images.<br /> <br /> First step, I'd consider moving the read-only tab on the card to make sure that no helpful operating system mangles whatever's there, until you've managed to get the images off. It bodes well that the camera can still read the data, so it's definitely there. Have you used this card successfully with that card reader before? There's a surprising lack of compatibility between card readers and cards - it's taken me quite a lot of goes to find something that works - especially at full speed - with everything I own.<br /> <br /> If the camera can read the images, I'd suggest as a short-term solution using the camera to download the images (just plug it in directly). I'd normally use a separate card reader, but if it's working, it would seem to be the obvious thing to try, and at least it shouldn't cost you anything. I'd format the card in the camera after you've downloaded everything - cards do sometimes get into a funny state, and the presence of a trash folder does suggest that a desktop operating system has been doing things to it.<br /> <br /> Paranoia suggests that you check you're looking at the right drive. I mention it only because I've made that kind of mistake before, and Windows is quite good at picking arbitrary drive letters and changing its mind.<br /> <br /> Good luck, and I hope that helps.</p>

<blockquote>I had to get used to this when I changed from a D700 to D800 but I actually ended up preferring it. To each his own.</blockquote> <p>Just for reference, my objection is that I tend to use big lenses hand-held, which means that I can't easily do anything with my left hand except support the lens, focus and zoom because my hand is several inches in front of the camera. Without growing an extra thumb roughly half way down my forearm, I have nothing in the right place to reach the focus mode selector. If I mostly used the lenses on a tripod or if I mostly used smaller lenses, it wouldn't be a problem. I suspect most people using a D3200 and considering a 5-series are unlikely to have been sufficiently cursed with Nikon Acquisition Syndrome to have the same problem. The 5 series actually has the advantage, when using a big lens, that most of the controls <i>are</i> right-handed - just not this one.</p>

<p>Alan: Valid point, although I have to say I think the D3200 is a better body than the 75-300 is a lens. :-) It's not like there aren't alternative lenses in Nikon mount...</p>

<p>I would point out that - other than frame rate, perhaps - the D5300 is a relatively minor update on the D5200. I'd check your budget carefully before going for the latest model: depending what you shoot, it may not gain you much. Though if you're switching AF modes, maybe you <i>do</i> care about frame rate.<br /> <br /> Alternatively, there's the D7000 - or D7100 if you can afford it. That'll give you better autofocus and relatively fast mode switching (though I hate the AF switch being on the left hand), but obviously it's a bigger and heavier camera.</p>

<p>By way of balance, Lex makes some good points about the V series. I'm certainly not going to claim that they're entirely useless - although the vastly lowered price on the V1 did help a lot with its appeal. The small sensor and subsequent low light performance don't particularly help it - especially for the "recital" type situation, although they're a lot better than most compacts - but the quiet shutter and finder do. I'll be interested to see how the RX100-III (with a faster lens and an integrated EVF) holds up for resolution - the older models don't seem to have the optics to do the sensor justice.<br /> <br /> My issue with the V1 for general use - even at the discount price - is that, even with the collapsible kit lens, it was appreciably bigger than my Panasonic GF2 and 14-42 PZ (also bought at a discount). The smallest micro 4/3 modern systems are smaller still. Samsung's NX-Mini line (disclaimer: my employers, although I've never seen these cameras) are genuinely small despite the same sensor size and interchangeable lenses, though I can't vouch for the lens range and I've seen a less-than-glowing review... The later v-series cameras are much more tempting from a handling perspective, despite the sensor performance, but the price really needs to tank before I'd replace my V1 with one - I now <i>have</i> a 60fps camera when I need one... But if I didn't, I'd be quite tempted, if not at V3 prices.</p>