glenjo

<p>I also have to wonder what the exact cost differences are to develop a pro DX lens as opposed to a pro FX lens, I suspect that the cost difference only pays off of the non-professional end of the lens spectrum where manufacturing costs are lower.</p>

<p>I don't suppose the D200 qualified as a pxo DX camera, but it had the feature set to qualify as the first digital F100 that I wanted. Since then, no particular camera in the right price range met the same criteria (although the D300S was very tempting). Instead I have spent my limited funds on glass (only FX glass even before the D3 was announced) which seems to be a better long term investment. <br>

Currently the D800 has the feature set which most appeal, but the price is too much to make the buy tempting , and honestly, I don't need the relution, whereas the D600 is missing some of the feature I desire . I would have to look closely at the D300 replacements, as that too, should be a camera with a desirable feature set and a lower price.<br>

I don't see Nikon ever introducing a full size camera in the DX range and actually worry that the D300S replacement will lack those features that I desire such a separate AF/AL lock and AF On buttons, and a pro style body construction.<br>

In fact I find the Nikon patent posted over at Nikon Rumors of a camera back which serves a means to retrofit existing film cameras with a digital wsensor as very appealing since having a means to upgrade the sensor without having to upgrade the whole body as going back to a more film like user model Film cameras got a new imagine sensor with every use rather than having a sensor which eventually wears out and is not economical to replace. In fact, I've often thought that a stripped down imaging system which fit in a 35mm film canister would a great format for my needs (except for the handy loss of ISO control). I suppose you can regard that as my requirement for an FX camera body with a pro like build but rather less complicated feature set (i.e. a F100 like feature set.)</p>

 

<p>I use protective filters on my "everyday" lenses while I'm doing walkabout everyday photography, but I remove the filters when I've switched to working photography.<br>

I also use Hoyas. </p>

<p>Christmas dinner coffee and a blown exposure - oops!</p><div></div>

<p>F100, nice! Given what you've stated you want to shoot - I would suggest some of the older AI and AIS classics such as the 105F2.5, 50F1.8 early AIS, 28F2.8AIS, and so on.</p>

<p>Well, that's the nice thing about the F100, you can pretty much use any Ai and later lens. </p>

<p>F100 still gets used here. I still don't have a DSLR with as good a viewfinder as the F100 (but then I don't own a D700.)</p>

<p>Nikonos?</p>

<p>Just kidding...</p>

<p>D200 with 105 F4 AI. I might have missed focus a bit, focus is pretty thin even at f8. Bokeh is good.</p><div></div>

<p>F100</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of the three, only the F6 is available new.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both the F100 and F6 are available brand new, in the box, from B&H. I use the F100 and love it, but a F6 would be very nice, especially the iTTL flash capability.</p>

<p>Our cat stalking the largest darn mice he had ever seen.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Magnification on a zoom is just the max focal length divided by the min focal length. A 300 has more reach than a 200, but is it enough? Check out this focal length comparison tool:<br>

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php<br>

A 70-300 will help, and it's a very nice lens, but maybe not as much as you expect. Sometimes it's best to zoom with your feet, and just get a close as you can.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the 55mm f3.5 AI'd (second edition pre-AI orginally) and it is a very nice lens. It is NOT very good at infinity (or even for use as a portrait lens), the 50mm f1.8 AF-D is much better for anything non-marco.</p>

<p>If he has an old Minolta, have you considered looking at Sony DSLRs? He MAY have some older lenses which still could work on a new Sony.</p>

<p>Otherwise what you have picked looks great. The only thing I would consider is if the D90 would fit the bill.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Most cost effective: 55f3.5 micro AI'd or 105f4 micro AI or 50f1.8 AFD. All inexpensive and great performers</p>

<p>Least cost effective 18-200 VR mostly because it's the most I've spent on a lens.</p>

<p>I use my SB-800 flash hand held off camera with CLS for macro. Works very well.</p>

<p>My choice would be the 14-24 and the 105. Keep the 14-24 on the camera, go for funky angles and put the 105 in your pocket for a close-up.<br>

But I have to ask, you use a roll around bag for one camera body, three lenses and a flash? Seems like overkill. </p>

<p>I'm using a D200 with an 18-200, and a 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 in low light. Now, I know this is a bit weighty, but it's the about the least heavy I have right now unless I want to use a rather crappy cell phone camera.</p>

<p>Here's another thumbs up for the F100. It compares well to the manual SLR's I have used (mostly older Canon), and is better than the D200 I currently use. Biggest problem I see with the F100 (and this may affect other F series SLRs) is the inability to show f stop changes lower than 2.8 (i.e. DOF and brightness changes doesn't seem to change when f stop is changed). This is also noticeable on the D200. I've heard this explained as a by-product of how AF is done, but don't know if this affects all new SLR's or DSLRs.</p>

<p>Having a good enough VF was my critical decision point before switching to a DSLR. The D200 was the first affordable DSLR where the VF was good enough to switch.</p>

<p>Willam,</p>

<p>My company uses Dell as our corporate provider, and we have tens of thousands of Dells deployed everywhere. We use them right out on a fairly dirty factory floor and I have been impressed with the reliability of the product. I've seen a super grungy Dell (installed too near a high pressure water jet cutter throwing up gritty spray) survive when an industrial PC right next to it died.<br>

I have no recent experience with HP, but their older products (I'm talking old HP-UX workstations) were the most reliable PCs I've seen. I'm somewhat ashamed to admit it, but we just retired some EXTREMELY old (HP 900 series) HP-UX boxes off of the factory floor. These were getting rather difficult to support, but considering their age (most 12+ years old), these were very reliable.</p>

<p>It's be interesting to know how long the big PC makers "burn-in" a new PC before considering it satisfactory to ship. I previously was in the US Navy, and we did rather extensive burn-in testing (including thermal/electrical shock) of all new/repaired black boxes prior to issuing them to the fleet.</p>

<p>Another recommendation for the 55mm f/3.5</p>

<p>What happens if you remove the flash from the camera, set the the flash to MASTER and put it back on the camera? All this with powering flash and camera on/off correctly. My flash stays in MASTER mode both on and off camera.</p>

<p>F100 will mount, meter, and shoot just about every Nikon lens made since 1977, and earlier lenses if these have been AI modified (except for those requiring mirror lock-up). This also includes the latest VR and AFS lenses. About the only thing it wont do is support fully automated use of the PC-E lenses.</p>

<p>I am not using a LS-30 with Linux, but I've used Linux for the last 14 years.</p>

<p>The Nikon LS-30 is completely supported according to SANE:<br /> http://www.sane-project.org/sane-mfgs.html#Z-NIKON</p>

<p>And the AVA-1906 is also supported on my current kernel (2.6.31) by the aic7xxxx driver according to the aic7xxxx.txt file at /usr/src/linux-source-2.6.24/Documentation/scsi:<br /> http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/scsi/aic7xxx.txt</p>

<p>SO it all SHOULD work. I'd need more specifics to know why not.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Richard Henley, that's some NICE WORK. I'm using GTK+-2.0 and C on Linux, but also Phil's exiftool. I'll post the results soon.</p>