jim_mohundro1

I sold my Ftn together with 35mm and 50mm f/2s and a 105 f/2.5 to a friend back in about 2002 or 2003 when I talked

myself unto reducing my equipment weight, number and bulk down to a nice, clean Leica M3 with f/2 Summicron. In

about 2006 my friend, after scanning far too many transparencies, committed his energies to a Nikon D40 and has

worked his way up through a very happy relationship with a D300 to his current D610. I made my transition to the DSLR

fraternity in 2008 with a D80 and now have a D750.

 

My friend would practically give the Ftn kit back to me (but might hold on that great 105 to use with his 610). I know that

the Ftn is in exceptionally clean and working condition as far as the mechnical elements go (shutter, etc), and I'm just a

little bit tempted to take him up on the offer, thinking it would be an indulgence but a bit of fun to do a bit of film shooting

from time to time. I have a good working Nikon V scanner, and I'd simply scan and add occasional Ftn images to my

Lightroom catalog.

 

I think, but am not sure, that there are no replacement batteries for the Ftn viewfinder/metering system. I think I could

probably obtain a decent F finder in the marketplace and pick up a decent Gossen or other competitive meter at a good

price, but I wonder if any reliable suppliers are in fact selling batteries for the Ftn finder/meter.

I'm a novice at this exposure stuff, but, if the OP is shooting in RAW, how relevant are the 5600 degree Kelvin and profile

setttings? Do they relate to the pre-shot image and histogram seen on the back LCD and its effect on the photgrapher's

exposure adjustments?

As a follow-up and correction to one of my previous posts in this thread, I've talked with B&H which had, and still has, two

listings for the Dell U2412M, one stating it is available and one, just below it if you use the search panel, that states that it

is no longer available. B&H now agrees that the second listing is incorrect and that the monitor is availble. My earlier

note on this seemed also to be verified to me because the U2412M was no longer avaiolable on the Staples web site, and

based on these two sources of information, I made my mistaken note of the monitor's lack of availability.

 

By the way, I did and continue to consider Staples as a possible on-line vendor for my monitor purchase because Staples'

policy provides for Staples handing the return of any item purchased through its web site if the item turns out to be faulty

(a DOA monitor or non-functioning camera, for example).

Wouter Willemse,

 

I think if I were only using the monitor for photo editing, using Lightroom, I'd be pretty indifferent between the two formats,

but I also do some teaching and writing and I'm not so sure how, for example, MS Word will work on a smaller screen

vertically. It's clear from the screen dimensions I've found that my old 19" Viewsonic povides more vertical landscape

than, especially, the 16:9.

 

Of course, most modern 16:9 and 16:10 monitor displays can be rotated 90%, and that might work for me if the

mechanism is smooth and, perhaps more important, long-lasting and maintenance-free. This new feature for me adds a

mechanical element and mchanical elements can bring an additional source o repair concerns.

<p>Wouter Willhelmse,<br>

Thanks for the tip on the Dell U2412M but it is no longer being sold in this country.<br>

I'm not aiming, on my budget, for a wide-gamut IPS monitor; I know that's not possible. I would like a monitor affordable to me that will do a decent job in the SRgb gamut (say 90% - 95%) and anything left over for Adobe Rgb is a possible bonus.<br>

These are the web links for the general TFT site and for its "Flicker-fee" database:</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews_index.htm">http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews_index.htm</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/flicker_free_database.htm</p>

<p >Perhaps I should just dismiss these articles but now that they've been brought to my attention...<br /></p>

<p >It's unfortunate that no photo-editing IPS monitor is available in my locality to view in a brick-and-mortar store, but I'd really at least like to see how the Lightroom panel format lays out on a 16:9 and a 16:10 monitor, to see if I should have a preference between the two. I know it would be different from my existing, older, non-IPS 19" Viewsonic. I posted the question on the Adobe Community forum yesterday but I've not seen a screen shot so far.<br /></p>

I can't find an "edit" link on Photonet, so this is my edit: The maximum budget of $350(or maybe $400) is for the monitor

itself.

Here's the set-up:

It's time to bring my ailing, but classic, VX922 Viewsonic 19" 1280 x 1024 to the next traveling Antiques Roadshow and upgrade to a

modestly-priced 23" or 24" IPS monitor. Considering I'll also have to upgrade my video card to at least deal with as much as 1920 x 1200

native resolution for my desktop PC on which I'm running Lightroom 5.7.1 (soon to be LR 6), I've set my maximum budget to about $350

(well, maybe uo to $400 maximum). I've also just moved up from a Spyder 3 Express calibrator (which I'd comfortably used to date with

the Viewsonic) to a Spyder 4 Elite, of which I made a fortuitous purchase in Vancouver, B,C., taking advantage of the excellent (for US

folks) US/Canadian exchange rate.

 

Rather than rely on the sometimes problematic HDMI/DVI adapters, I've chosen to stick with my desktop PC's straightforward DVI output

and that has limited, a bit, my choices within my budget constraints. The size of the monnitor itself is also somewhat narrowed, literally,

by the physical space I've been able to allocate to my monitor choice.

 

I had sort of focused my choices, based on my budget and some reviews balanced between positive and slighty negative, to the NEC

ea234WMI-BK on the smaller side, and the NEC ea244WMI and Asus PA248q on the larger side.

 

I was close to making the final choice, also constrained a bit by the fact that no one of these monitors is actually on view where I live, so

my buying choice needs to be on-line. Although I've comfortaby puchased a Nikon D700 on line from B&H, I'm a bit nervous about the

monitor; it's a much larger, more awkwardly re-packable item to return to an online vendor if the monitor is DOA or obviously

unsatisfactory otherwise. I have found that, for a price not much greater than some online sellers, and even sometimes less, that

Staples will honor an online order of any of the monitors I've considered with delivery to a local Staples store which will return the monitor

for me to the manufacturer within 14 days if there's a problem with the monitor, so that firm may be my eventual vendor.

 

Now, at last, the "flicker" issue. In my review of online forums postings on the subject, I've suddenly been confronted with a problem that,

in pratical use, may or may not be a problem. An apparently quite knowledegable and veteran poster on another forum has discussed at

some length the apparent problem of "flicker" and has linked to web sites and YouTube videos that purport to show actual flicker on many

monitors. Apparently it's a phenomenon mostly peculiar to the now-common LED backlinghing for most current monitors, and the Pulse

Wave Modulation (PWM) "circuit" that most moniors employ to "control" monitor brightness. There is at least one web site that tests

monitors for the employment of PWM and reports its effects on montor viewing. My monitor choice was simple until I starting reading and

worrying about this stuff!

 

The NECs and Asus in which I've been interested apparently have the PWM problem. On expensive, beyond my monior budget level,

the problem does not seem as prevalent. The poster who first brought this to my attention noted that there is a Dell P2414h which has

been characterized by the Flicker Database web site to be flicker-free but really no others within my budget that also have DVI

connections. I've had two or three Dell desktops in earlier years but no Dell monitors, but I infer from many internet postings that Dells

can be great and Dells can be not so good and, in general, in their very large line, tend to be uneven, even among the same models.

 

Now I seem to be stuck on the flicker "problem", hesistant to make the move.

 

Is flicker generally a problem in practical photo editing (and MS Word, etc) use?

 

New illumination on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

I'm really surprised that no one responded to my question. Should I address it on Nikonians?

As an old-timer (Nikon F and rangefinders before that, including a Nikon S3, two or three Leicas, a Contax IIA and a

handful of various Retinas and Vitesses), and Ds 80, 200, 300, 700 and now a D610 in this digital era, I never realized

that, with my 24-85mm VR and my 28mm f/1.8G, the default position of the lens aperture was at its smallest, unlike the

operating function of the non-G lenses. That of course must mean that either somewhere in the focusing process the

camera and lens, working together in their mysterious ways, fully open the aperture for focusing and then close it down to

the "taking" aperture, which seems incredibly mechanically ineffcient, unless of course what I've read in this thread hasn't

mentioned what might be happening, i.e., that the unmounted G lens is fully closed down while "at rest", but opens to its

fullest aperture when properly mounted on the camera body; otherwise, we'd not see a (relatively) fully illuminated image

in the view finder.

 

My personal mental viewfinder is at its smallest aperture. What's happening here with the autofocus and diaphram-

setting process that I don't understand?

As an oldster who upgraded from the Daguerrotype to a Nikon F in early 1970, I can report that the f/2 Nikkor "pre-AI"

lens available at that time was my standard lens and I adopted it as such based on my earlier experience with the Nikon

S3 rangefinder 35mm body and the gem that the rangefinder f/2 version was. I remember that it was fairly widely

considered superior to the f/1.4 which, at one stop larger, was a flashier piece of glass but not inherently superior to the

f/2; in fact, many critics found the f/2 produced better image quality throughout its range than did the f/1.4. If the optical

formula for the f/2 Nikkor you're considerimg is in fact identical with that of the 50mm f/2 Nikkor I used with my Nikon F, it

was and is a gem and its IQ will be very competitive with current "standard" lenses.

This is not meant to be a wholly off topic podt, but one wonders why the otherwise helpful chart, above, indicates there

are numerical ISO performance differences between the D600 and the D610, given the D610 modifications of the D600's

functions ought not to affect the performance numbers at all. Is this an indication of some inconsistency in the DXO

testing process of the two bodies or just a normal variation between two bodies with no apparently relevant differences

selected at random, or, if the latter, it would be, academically perhaps, interesting to see the variation over, say, 10 or 12

or 20 bodies.

<p>It seems to me that if an important priority is to be able to use one or more of your existing Nikkors, than you should consider the smallest Nikon DSLR that will "drive", i.e., permit the chosen lens(es) to autofocus on that smaller body.<br>

If that is not an issue, there are several quite good 4/3 cameras if you want the interchangeable lens option. If you'll miss a viewfinder (none will be as great as the D700's), you'll have to pick one of the "DSLR-like" 4/3 cameras. They will not be as compact as the non-viewfinder models.<br>

There are just a few (and not inexpensive) 4/3 cameras that are more compact but also offer the (usually costly) option of an accessory electronic viewfinder. With those, compact size will be somewhat compromised.<br>

There are many good, smaller than 4/3 options, of course, from Canon and Sony, for example, and you may be comfortable framing shots by viewing the back-of-camera LCD and essentially shooting at something like arms' length. There can occasionally be some problems with viewing the LCD in sunny weather and not being able to hold the camera rock-steady for slow-shutter images (but many of these cameras now have built-in stabilization, anyway).<br>

I own and mostly use a D700, but my choice for a trip to hot, cobblestoned Italy last year was the 4/3 Panasonic GF1 plus the electronic viewfinder. That particular camera body seemed the most like my Nikon in controls for most all functions and I was easily able to make the transition for the trip. I must add that I shot RAW and was able to find a nice Lightroom preset to emulate the Nikon "look."</p>

<p> </p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a>,<br>

I agree with your comment re the extra 4mm. If we're carrying only the one body and are limited to one lens (tourist images, street shooting generally, or where we just can't pack much on us), it's a good idea to bring some, necessarily compromising, zoom that will at once give us both the longest and widest tools we think we are likely to use. I purchased my used 28-105 (a spendid buy at $200) for 1) street shooting and 2) hanging out with a very fast 4-year old grandson. For images where I have a bit more leisure to prepare I bring along my dandy 24mm f/2.8 AI-s Nikkor and one or two other primes depending on the general plans for making pictures that day. Would that I could afford the excellent lenses available down around 14mm and 16mm, but I'd not use them that often, I think, to justify the cost since I'm an amateur. I do find that 24mm for me seems to be down toward the lower end of what I can deal with given any aim toward "normal" perspective.</p>

<p>I purchased a used 28-105 a couple of weeks ago and I'm very pleased with its performance, both at the wide end (I had to just slightly increase my Lightroom's default sharpness setting from 25 to 50 for the wide end) and at the long end. I'm going to attempt to upload a quick indoors test "macro" here and I'm even more pleased by that result, to which I've added no sharpening. The sunshade (which was swiftly sent from B&H) is indeed a bit goofy, but it works and I'd recommend it to complete the 28-105. By the way, the image, if it is successfully uploaded here is of about 4 inches of a 4-1/2 inch miniature bottle and is not sharpened beyond the LR default.</p><div></div>

<p>If you can stretch to the $500 (which seems high for a Nikkor 85mm AF f/1.8, you could, with judicious shopping, probably come up with a good used 16-85mm Nikkor VR for a similar price. When I went to full-frame (D700), I sold my 16-8 on Craig's List for $500 and noted over the couple days it was listed several other listings around the same price. I used the 16-85 almost exclusively on my D80 in Spain, the south of France and London last summer and it's a spendid lens, one that I would have kept but for the D700 purchase.</p>

<p >When I moved from a D80 to a D200, I found I could just fit my camera body and a couple of lenses in the Domke F-5XB medium shoulder/belt bag and it would store essentially flat (it’s an attaché-type small case) in my backpack for air travel. It’s small so I would carry the charger and cord, the Rocket Blower and miscellaneous accessories in a separate plastic Ziplock bag. On arrival, I’d reassemble the body with favored (for the outing) lens, and stick the alternative lens in a pocket in lens wrap. In my “D80/D200 days” I was shooting a 16-85 VR and a 35AFD. I’d then insert the D80/D200 with lens either on its side or face down in the Domke F-5XB for carrying between shots (European big cities, uncertain security). The D80/D200 with lens and strap barely fit, bulging out the bag—but it worked.<br>

When I acquired my D700 (economically necessitating the sale of the D80/200 and the 16-85) I found that there is no way that the D700, even with the 35 (my “walkaround” lens) would fit the bag.<br>

Now I’m looking for a small (not much longer, at least, than the F-5XB) to carry just the D700 and 35 mounted. Unfortunately, the smallest dimension for the D700 is its height, 4.8”, so I’m looking for the smallest, well-made shoulder bag that will accommodate the D700 and 35. If there’s a bit of extra room, I’d stick in one of my AI-s short (105 and 135) telephotos but this is not a deal breaker. Domke does not appear to offer anything appropriately just large and also small enough to meet my needs—which also include, of course, an unobtrusive, non-camera bag appearance. Backpacks or fanny packs are neither handy nor secure where I've traveled so a front-facing bag on which I can keep my hand at rest, where appropriate, is absolutely necessary.<br>

The Domke F-5XB's interior dimensions are about 9.5W x 4D x 6H. Given the dimensions of my camera with, say, the 35mm f/2, I'd need a bag with something like interior minimums of 5" (D700 height is 4.8") x 6"(D700 width is 5.5") x 5" (D700 + the 35 is about 4.7")<br>

Ideas here would be mightily appreciated.</p>

<p>If you're going to be mostly in cities, e.g., London, York, Bath, Edinburgh, you may not need the reach of the 70-300, and, if you're walking around, rather than driving to visit sites, you may want to economize on weight. I've did quite well and comfortably with just the 16-85 (a gem for a DX body) and the 35 f/2.</p>

Using the on-camera flash on my D200, I fairly frequently have got the equivalent of "red eye" as I've photographed my cats. I've had much better luck with window light and no flash. I agree that cats seem to work (or, mostly, sleep) on different schedules from us, their staff. Keep using the kit lens. What could be more appropriate?

<p>I agree with Tim. For many years (I'm not going to admit how many) I used film cameras and rarely, if ever, forgot the ISO (formerly ASA) of the film I was using, mostly because, I think, I had to physically replace film cartridges in order to change ISO rather than just pushing a button or rolling a dial. DSLRs require much more mental preparation before shooting just because DSLRs are much more versatile in the offered shooting options.</p>

<p>There are many comparative lab measurements of lens sharpness or resolving power, both at center and at edges, at various specific apertures. I’ve seen some lens reviews indicating that some lenses fall off in sharpness at various distances, i.e., they may be optimum in a certain range (close-up [macro?], mid-range or infinity). If one is looking for a lens for general purpose image-making, are there reviews from respected reviewers that discuss the relative sharpness of lenses across their ranges?</p>

<p>Note: I've asked this question on the Nikonians site and gotten good responses from 105mm VR Micro users, but none from one who's used the 105mm f/2 DC Nikkor lens. I hope someone here will have used the two and can provide a comparison or at least can share his or her experience with the f/2 DC lens.<br>

I'd like to supplement my 16-86 VR and 70-300 VR with a faster (either F/2 or f/2.8 short prime tele lens with or without VR) as a short, general-purpose tele lens for available light. Assuming that neither the DC capabilities of the F/2 nor the macro capabilites of the f/2.8 are deal points for me (both are great features but my focus, so to speak, is on a general purpose lens, and while either of these special features is nice to have, neither is essential to me to have), which is likely to be a better general-purpose short tele lens in terms of IQ and overall performance, i.e., relative freedom from CA and/or color fringing, etc?</p>

<p>I too traveled in June, but with one extra EN-EL3e battery in my D80 and 2-lens containing carry-on with no problems. I do think it's prudent to attach the battery's plastic protector. They did, however, confiscate my perfectly innocent corkscrew at Heathrow.</p>

I replaced my 5-year old economically uncleanable Canon 950i with a new, well-rated (at least by Consumer Reports)

PIXMA 4600 at the same price that would be my out-of-warranty minimum cost at my Canon-approved service

provider--plus any replacement parts required, so that seemed a reasonable deal (the price direct from Canon was at

15% off the "suggested retail price", which seemed to be consistent with what I could sample on the web, and

included free overnight FedEx shipping). I'm not a professional with professional-printer needs and I'd been happy

enough with the 950i for its several functional years.

 

A couple questions: I opted (too late--I've already received the 4600, but I'm curous) for the 4600 based partly on the

reviews and partly on the fact that, of the under $200 Canon photoprinters (my budget), the 4600 has about 4300

print nozzles in contrast to the "all-in-one" Canons that each have about 2,200 print nozzles, reasoning that printing

quality ought to be somewhat better with the 4600; however, I belatedly realized that 4300 or so nozzles are even

more likely to clog than 2,200. Right?

 

Second, the Canon tech support person said I should make a few prints at least once a week to help keep the

nozzles wet and clear. Is that about right, or should I be printing even more often to achieve that maintenance

purpose?

<p>I’m slowly but steadily learning the D80 I purchased last August. I’ve not used the AE-L/AF-l button, but I can see its benefit if used on AE-L with spot metering. Thom Hogan, in his "Nikon D80 to Go", suggests AE-L, together with AE-L Lock Hold and FV-lock as settings. I can also see that focus lock is could be the highest priority in a specific situation, subject to one's confidence in the D80 metering for the situation.<br /><br />I’m now experimenting with bracketing and, with the pretty economical usage of higher-Gb SD cards, the bracketing tools appear to be a good bet for some critical shots. How does the AE-lock option work with bracketing? Does one hold down the button (presumably programmed for AE-lock only) separately for each shot in the brackets, for example, 0,-.3 and +.3? Will bracketing work for center-weighted metering and matrix metering (I’ve generally felt most comfortable with CW, coming from a long-time Nikon Ftn film camera experience)?</p>

<p>Disclosure: I'd posted these questions on Nikonians yesterday but nobody on the D80 forum has responded.</p>

<p>Lex,</p>

<p>The D200 has finally been removed from the NikonUSA site, so Nikon must agree with DP Review that the camera is really discontinued. Nikon tends to leave items on its site longer than their availability would suggest is logical. The Nikon CoolScan V scanner is thought by many dealers and others to have been discontinued, but appears on Nikon's site. When I got my scanner new last year, I had a couple of problems setting it up and noted in my telephone conversation with the Nikon tech that even my camera store was startled when a long-time delayed order was delivered and had thought the scanner had been discontinued (no notice received, however). The Nikon tech stated that the scanner was not in fact discontinued but was a low volume item that was only manufactured when inventories got pretty low.</p>