craig_rogers3

<p>I don't quite agree with Rodeo Jo about the DOF not being usable on DX cameras.<br>

I often use it on my D7000 and whilst, yes, it does darken, it's still very useful working out what's in focus and what's not. As for the Flash Strobe to show where the shadows are throwing, it's a great feature.</p>

<p>Although not helping your situation, I have the same 105 f/4 Ai and it works perfectly on my D7000, I also use the PN-11 with it too with no issues. So if the lens is in good order then you shouldn't expect compatability issues.</p>

<p>Yes, all good! Thanks!</p>

<p>Still not fixed for me on IE9. Don't want to use Chrome as I don't like it or Firefox for that matter.<br>

Will there be a fix for IE9? The compatability doesn't work for me, it's the same whatever I select.</p>

<p>As you already have the 50mm 1.8, unless you have the cash to purchase the epic Nikon 17-55 2.8 (or maybe an equivalent, but the Nikon is the ultimate), I would stick to primes as you won't get the same quality out of other zooms.<br /> I have the 35mm 1.8 as well as the 50mm 1.8 (and also the 17-55 2.8). The 35mm 1.8 is simply amazing. It's also DX format which will suit your D90.<br /> It's another great priced lens, big bang for little bucks! In fact since I got the 35mm (which is similar to the 50mm on full frame), I rarely put the 50mm 1.8 on the camera anymore. It's also another small lightweight lens to carry around. A little bigger than the 50mm, but still small and light.</p>

<p>Hi Diane,<br>

The shots are all circa 20mb as they tend to be. Unfortunately, the photos where against an extremely Grey sky... :( Not a good day for photographing them, it was very dark....<br>

I can understand the thoughts behind Nikon taking the side of worst case scenario, however, given the difference in count verses actual, that would mean photos at over 30mb each. I've never seen a photo that large and doubt it's even possible.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I can see the benefits, but it is a bit of an overkill estimate. Wayne, agree with what your saying, however, this isn't possible when you are running 2 cards in overflow as it still fills the card (almost, but not quite) before shifting to the next one.</p>

<p>Yeah, I get that, but I've never seen an image much larger than 20mb, therefore, their estimates even worst case it terrible.</p>

<p>I use a 16gb Sandisk Extreme Cards. Usually when I format the card (always in the Camera), I get around 480 shots remaining.</p>

<p>However, out snapping Birds of Prey on Sunday with 2 cards loaded and heavily using burst mode.<br /> Imagine my shock when I got home and the first card had over 700 photos on there. I'm shooting in RAW/14bit/Lossless and all photos were around the 20mb mark.<br /> Quick calculations show this is possible, but why is the camera's estimates way out?</p>

<p>If you are looking for something a little better than the D90, full of great specs and keeping the cost down a little.</p>

<p>The perfect mate to your 70-200 would be a D7000. It also works great for dark sport shots due to it's good high-ISO handling.</p>

<p>Price vs Spec has to go to the D7000. Great camera, great price! If that is still a little to high on the price range, then the D5100 could be a second choice</p>

<p>I notice that a few people mention the 80-200's AF being "pokey" and "slow".</p>

<p>This isn't the case at all if you have the newer AF-D or AF-S version.</p>

<p>The original 80-200 AF-D f/2.8 was very slow, they improved it in the "newer" 80-200 AF-D f/2.8 and subsequent 80-200 AF-S. They may not be as quick as the 70-200 models, but they are pretty much there.</p>

<p>I use the "newer" 80-200 AF-D on burst with my D7000 set at 6fps (usually fire off 3 shots) and pretty much always get a focus, including when I shoot indoors.</p>

<p>These lenses are generally aimed at low light sports shooting, therefore, I think the the VR is almost not needed as you end up panning most of the time. VR won't help you when panning. This is why I opted for the 80-200 AF-D due to the cost. I picked it up for a bargain, brand new for £735 in the UK.</p>

<p>Yes, the D7000 is a little darker when no power. You can't really pick up a camera in a wholesaler and try and decide if it's for you........<br>

Also remember that the D7000 is 100% viewfinder too!</p>

<p>Sorry to almost hijac, but has anyone else noticed the "Today's Most Active Threads" box on the Home page as shown below........ Made me giggle anyway!</p>

<p><img src="http://www.craigrogers.co.uk/dump/wife.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Think of it like this.........<br /> An airflow meter on a car monitors and adjusts the fuel accordingly to the amount of air entering an engine.<br /> An airflow meter on a slow car could be identical to an airflow meter on another car with better performance. However, it doesn't mean that the engine in the slow car can process the air as quick or efficiently as the faster car.<br /> Just because a camera shares components with another camera means that it's results (or data output) will be the same.<br /> This is Nikon using what is probably cheaper manufacturing costs (shared components) to a marketing advantage.</p>

<p>If you are going to be using it for Macro work, you might want to consider the older 105 f/4 Micro AI (or AI-s).<br>

Usually a lot cheaper, and for Macro work you don't need a low f/stop due to DOF. It's MF, but then Macro work is better in MF. The only downside if you are looking for 1:1, you'll also need the PN-11 Extension. I got mine cheap as chips off ebay. <br>

If you are not going to using if just for Macro, then maybe the newer one for the AF and low f/stop</p>

<p>Just picking up on the 80-200 speed of focus, as long as it's the last version of the AF-D or the newer AF-S. Speed isn't an issue, the original 80-200 AF-D (and earlier) is very slow.<br>

Great comparison on Ken Rockwell's site, but we are not allowed link to him......<br>

I use the later 80-200 AF-D and shoot indoor in low light (Show Jumping) and don't have an AF issue even on 6fps burst shooting. It is pretty heavy though!</p>

<p>Not so sure it's desperation, more clever marketing as it seems to be working at the moment.<br /> It keeps me going back. I got my D7000 from them a few months ago as nowhere could touch them for price and since I've gone back and bought 2 prime lenses of them for the same reason.<br /> If they keep selling at cheap prices, it'll keep me going back. I have to admit, I got the camera from a different branch to the lenses, but that was down to stock levels. I won't name and shame, but the shop I got the camera from was more like walking into the Carphone Warehouse. Just seemed like a sales outlet. The smaller 2 different shops that I got the lenses from were much more like a profesional outlet. Although all 3 did try and sell me more, for instance insurance and filters.</p>

<p>Yeah, unfortunately, that happens throughout the retail industry with the big gunners.<br>

I'm also a Mountain Bike Coach and see the same problem with Halfords. Some are great, others are just spotty teenagers on a Saturday/evening job without a clue.<br>

However, it's the rubbish ones that bring the name down.</p>

<p>Thanks Jon, as I said, it's a lesson well learnt. Luckily, although time consuming, I've got some usable photos and certainly made sure that ADL is set to off</p>

<p>For those of us in the UK, know that Jessops are pretty good on price currently, beating a lot of the independants.<br>

I was in a branch today picking up a new lens (yes, another cheap bargain!) and mentioned about the prices of the DSLRs and how well priced they are.<br>

The young lad working there said that they sell most of the DSLRs at either cost price or even cheaper than cost price to try and gain customers for future sales.<br>

Pretty shocked at that, but hey, that's the power of big establishments. It's no wonder why the independants are struggling to keep matching them for price.</p>

<p>Well, I have to admit, even though I probably won't be using it again, the ADL is pretty clever. I've opened them up in NX2 and it's incredible. I've +1 to the exposure (undoing the manual stop down I put in the camera) and the images are pretty much where I wanted them to be.<br>

Therefore, right now, I've got NX2 batch converting all the images with +1 exposure out to Tiff where I'll then make the final crop/straighten plus any little noise clear ups in Lightroom.<br>

Thanks to all for the well informed education!</p>

<p>Are you sure about that Wayne? If so, then why in LR is the Histogram shifted right off the left side of the scale when in NX2 is more toward the centre? This only happens when ADL is active.<br>

Bruce, that was the issue, on the camera (and in NX2) the histogram is acceptable, it's only when imported into LR it's off the left side.</p>

<p>Ha ha, there's my answer! :)<br>

I'll convert all the images to B&W and pretend that I planned it! :)</p>

<p>Thanks Wouter.<br>

Just out of interest, if I have manually set exposure to -1 and then ADL is applied, will the camera then effectively reduce by the -1 I've set AND then stop it down further with ADL. Therefore, resulting in an underexposed shot being further slightly underexposed.<br>

That would then make sense in the results between NX2 and LR. In NX2, they are underexposed, but acceptable in LR they are just waaaaaaaay underexposed.</p>

<p>Great stuff Dwight.<br>

One thing I forgot to mention, the camera was set to Auto-ADL...... As I said, lesson well learnt and it will remain off in the future! :)</p>