stephen_worth

<p>By the way, force a restart. That is what got the app on my comp to work.</p>

<p>I've got it set up to transfer to my computer, but pushing RAW files across wifi is WAY too slow when I can just plug the card into the iMac. I got the Camera Remote to work too. It is more useful, because it scales the image down to about Facebook dimensions.<br>

Documentation on the Fuji camera I just bought and the software is pretty bare bones. I've gotten more info online.</p>

<p>I just did the exact same thing that the original poster did... I went from a Nikon D7000 to a Fuji X100T. I have a full set of lenses for the D7000... 30 1.4, 50 1.4, 18-200, fisheye, ultra wide zoom, 125 macro, midrange zoom, etc... a whole bag full of stuff. But that was the problem. It was all so bulky and heavy, it's barely been out of its bag.</p>

<p>Now I'm not one of those guys who thinks that reducing my options will make me more creative. "Framing with your feet" is no substitute for the flexibility that my bag full of lenses gives me. But the camera you have with you takes better pictures than the one at home in the closet in its bag. I looked at the pictures I've taken in the past couple of years, and almost all my favorites were taken with my iPhone.</p>

<p>I remembered back in the early days of digital, I had a small 4 megapixel Olympus with a fantastic lens. It was a lot of fun to shoot with, and I did great things with it. I looked at the Fuji X100T and realized that it was the best of both worlds... small, simple and direct to use, and with image quality as good as my Nikon.</p>

<p>I'll probably keep my Nikon for when I do formal portraits, or special stuff like fisheye shots; but I have a feeling this little Fuji is going to be with me everyday taking the bulk of the shots. I just got it today in the mail, and I spent a few hours puzzling out the menus and setting it up so I never have to dig through menus for anything I need again. THAT is a very liberating feeling. I hate having to swap my glasses on and off as I shoot and stare at the screen on the back instead of looking through the viewfinder.</p>

<p>One word... taxidermy. Makes photography of children MUCH easier.</p>

Answers to your question can get very long and technical. I'll cut to the chase. The 18-105 VR would be perfect for your

wife. She would be very happy with it as a replacement for the 18-55. When the time comes for another lens, the perfect

complement would be the 35 1.8 to shoot indoors without a flash.

<p><em>Standard portraits taken on FX are frequently made using a 85mm lens (with some prefering longer, up to 135mm is quite normal). So if anything, 75mm is still too short.</em><br>

<em><br /></em>The difference between 75mm and 85mm doesn't add up to a hill of beans. On DX, a 50mm is a fine portrait lens.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Devon. There are some amazing small cameras, and if she doesn't want to be changing lenses, they will be much better for her than a DSLR.</p>

<p>I have the Nikon VR I and I am very happy with it.</p>

<p>HAHAHA! SUCKER!</p>

<p>Amazing how people seem oblivious of jokes!</p>

<p>I got a refurb D7000 from Cameta for $75 less than that. It was perfect out of the box. The refurbs have been double checked. The regular ones haven't.</p>

<p>I'm curious... how fast an ISO is enough? People's opinions seem to change every time a new camera comes out. It seems to me that if you are forced to shoot at 6400, the lighting is going to probably suck anyway.</p>

Ken Rockwell's iPhone guide to the D70000 helped me a lot.

I had to figure out how to set it for the best function for me, and I had to learn to control all the points. With my old D200, I

did center point focus lock then shift. The D7000 is capable of much more sophisticated focus control.

<p>I test the focus of my lenses by shooting photographs.</p>

<p>I bought a refurb D7000 from Cameta and it worked great out of the box. It took me a while to figure out the focusing though. It is more complicated than my old D200.</p>

I have Ken Rockwell's iPhone app guide on my phone. It's the best of all, because it's always in your shirt pocket

<p>I just got a D7000 and for video it flat out sucks. My iPhone is better. For still photography, it is spectacular.</p>

<p>I have a D7000 and I use the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Tokina 11-16 2.8 (both screw drives). I am thoroughly happy with both. No need for Nikon lenses in this range. Both of these are just as good as the Nikon equivalent.</p>

<p>I got spots on my sensor and simply blowing them with a bulb blower dislodged them. It isn't always necessary to do a full cleaning.</p>

<p>I use Hoya HMC and haven't had any problems. I take them off when I shoot into the sun.</p>

Low light and f/11? Sounds like a case of just not enough light to work with. Or could it be a problem with backlighting

messing up the exposure of the subject?

ALWAYS get a lens in a new focal length first. Once you complete your kit from wide to tele, you'll know which lenses you

use the most and which ones could stand improvement.

 

It's been my experience that upgrading for image quality is almost always a waste of money. Upgrading for speed or

features makes sense, but stopped down a bit, all modern lenses are sharp... Even the lowliest kit lens. Sharpness fixation

is for people with OCD, not photographers.

<p>I love how camera companies and photo store employees use the ISO scale to make differences sound bigger than they are... "With this camera, you can only shoot up to ISO 800. But with this one, you can shoot as high as 1600!" It's still just one meagre click on the f stop ring.</p>

I get what I need for the long haul and stick with it, particularly with camera bodies. I like having a feel for the controls

inside and out, and learning a new set every year or two would never get me to that place. My theory is that a camera has

to do something entirely new before I'll upgrade. Doing something a little better isn't enough.

If resolution for landscapes is what you're looking for, you shouldn't be looking at digital. The difference between cameras

and lenses isn't great enough to justify the cost. If you were looking for speed and low light, a D700 would be a great

investment. But it seems you're a film photographer who has traded image quality for the convenience of digital. You aren't

going to see much difference unless you bite the bullet and get a medium format camera. Find a quality lab to scan for

you. It will be much cheaper and more effective for you than getting high end digital equipment that really isn't up to what

you're asking it to do.

 

The alternative is to decide if you really need all that resolution. If you're just looking at images on a monitor, you aren't

pleasing the viewer of your work. You're just gaining some sort of theoretical satisfaction. Unless your images are drop

dead gorgeous and deserve to be printed to fill a wall with spectacular detail, you really don't need to go down the

expensive road you're going.