glenn_c1

<p>Thanks for the replies. By the way, I tried to make the implication that I'd already run a search but that nothing I'd found solved the problem.</p>

<p>In any case I found the solution - I was using a JPEG, but it turns out I needed to use a RAW file to have it show the count. The total shutter count info was missing from the JPEG EXIF on the handful of EXIF readers I tried. Straight from the camera either way, for what it's worth.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

 

<p>I've been trying to get the total shutter actuation count on my D90 and haven't had any luck. I've used a handful of different EXIF programs and viewers and don't see the shutter count anywhere in the data. The weird thing is that I know I've been able to find this information before, but now I don't see it anywhere. </p>

<p>Any ideas? Where in the data does the count usually appear? In what category, before/after what, etc? Is there some way I could have changed something that would prevent the actuation count from being recorded or displayed?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

 

<p>This is the reason high sync speeds are coveted by photographers. Any way around the problem, like ND filters or FP mode, greatcly reduces the relative power of the flash. Those are the options, though, if you want narrow depth and fill flash in the same shot.</p>

<p>Hi Shun,</p>

<p>That perspective distortion implies physical relationships within the frame that, for me, makes for a more interesting shot. Not always, of course, but that is the attraction to me of wide angles, whether it's for a landscape or people shot. I'd agree it isn't the best for traditional portraiture as it's not particularly flattering most of the time, that's obvious - but using the photo you pointed out, I like the perspective seen with one of my kids deep in a crevice between two boulders while my other kid is sitting practically on top of him. Personally I find it to be somewhat interesting compositionally and to bring me back to the site in a multi-dimensional way, for lack of a better term, that a normal or longer lens wouldn't. You can also see that we're in a canyon, and you can see the sky, even though that information is revealed in only a small part of the frame. I think a normal lens would have made for a pretty boring photo here while the ultrawide made it kind of an interesting one. Not that it's anything particularly special but for a basic family shot under harsh light I find some interest in it, at least.</p>

<p>That's really my point - that the persectives, if you like wide angles, work well for people just as they can for scenics - distortion naturally having to be understood as a side effect.</p>

<p>By the way I always notice people mentioning problems with Tokinas' wide angles in these threads. Just for the record I've had two 12-24s and the 11-16 and haven't had problems with any of them. (Nor have I had problems with any of my Nikon lenses). They have all been very sharp.</p>

<p>For what it's worth...</p>

<p>Trevor, something I didn't see mentioned (sorry if it was and I missed it) - did you have auto D-Lighting turned on? I never use that unless I need it because it will take dark areas of your photo and blast them with amplifier gain with consequences to noise just like I see in your shot.</p>

<p>When I want my dark areas to stay dark I turn ADL off, which is most of the time.</p>

 

<p>It seems to me this is a similar idea to electronic zoom. In both cases the market for point&shoots is well served by an imperfect electronic solution to a shooting problem whereas the DSLR market would not appreciate the compromise in image quality that is involved.</p>

<p>The closest things Nikon has to this feature that I'm aware of are their L1.0 (electronically "pushed') low ISO and their Active D-Lighting, both of which alter the image electronically between the sensor photosites and the write to the card.</p>

 

<p>And here is the 12-24 at 12mm.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I've had such a hard time choosing between the 11-16 Tokina and the 12-24 that I now have both and really don't think there is a better solution for me. The 12-24 is a MUCH more useful walking-around lens, though, enough so that if I had to choose one, that would probably be it. The 11-16 does have that very useful extra mm of range on the wide end, though, and the f/2.8 aperture is a nice bonus although, as others have pointed out, it is rarely particularly useful for wide-angle photography.</p>

<p>In disagreement with some, though, I find these wide angles very useful for people photography. You have to get used to the idea of getting very close to people, and yes there will be some perspective distortion if you look for it, but the ability to show a person and a large chunk of their environment is tremendously useful and also a lot of fun.<br>

Here is an example of the 11-16 at 11mm, and I think this one is actually at f/2.8</p><div></div>

<p>Melissa,</p>

<p>Eric Arnold brings up a good point and and example to go along with it.</p>

<p>However, if that's not your problem, I had a 50/1.8 and found it to be very poor.</p>

<p>I can only assume, given the overall excellent reviews of that lens, that mine was anomalous. However, I've heard the same from others from time to time, and it's possible yours is just another mediocre example.</p>

<p>One thing that I'd consider separate from optical quality is focus quality. If you're used to the AF-S of the 17-55, the 50 is definitely a step backwards. Not necessarily in speed, but the AF-S lenses are just a lot better at finding and holding focus effortlessly - the older lenses are much more likely to hunt or to flutter back and forth without locking securely.</p>

<p>Hope that helps.</p>

 

<p>This past weekend I spent a bit of time with the camera hoping to get a shot that expressed, for me, something of an Independence Day theme. I wasn't thinking along the lines of fireworks or any other direct shot of celebratory activity but something a bit more personal. It wasn't until the final minutes of the weekend when I was streaming back towards Denver with other traveling vacationers and glanced in my rear view mirror that I had an idea I might have found what I wanted.</p>

<p>This photo speaks to me and I'm quite satisfied with it.</p>

<p>By the way a quick thanks to those who made note of my goat last week - I didn't make time to either reply or to call out those whose shots I admired myself. This week, so far, the standout shot for me is Thangavelu Nachimuth's missing earing, although, of course, there are so many other excellent shots, far more than I could mention. And the day is still young!</p>

<p>Anyway, here is my choice for the week, shot with D90, 16-85 VR, 20s @ f/10, ISO 200:</p><div></div>

<p>Paolo, due to Joe's answer above I looked through your posts and I think I understand your situation. </p>

<p>Assuming that you're on a tight budget, I would recommend Nikon's 55-200mm VR lens, 35mm f/1.8 lens and 18-55mm lens. All three use the same 52mm filter thread, and I would recommend a polarizing filter and screw-on two-stop graduated neutral density filter with a soft gradation. Use coated filters wherever possible to reduce flare. For macro use you can get a two-element Marumi or Canon diopter and use it on the 55-200, which already focuses fairly close.</p>

<p>I think that would be a very good and lightweight starter kit that would cover everything except wide angles, but a lot of beginners find 18mm to be wide enough.</p>

 

<p>With my D90 I still expose the way I used to with slides - that is, I give it a bit less than the meter recommends - from 1/3 stop in low contrast conditions to a stop or more in very high contrast. While I know it's true that a bit more exposure, corrected in post-processing, would give less noise, I'm happy with my results and have not yet accepted the need to engage post-processing tools for every image I decide to keep. </p>

<p>I tend to like dramatic lighting and low-key images and would much rather give up shadows than highlights. </p>

<p>As for Active D-Lighting I find it a very useful tool - however, I would never leave it on for all shots - it can turn what I want to be shadow areas into noisily-enhanced areas of unwanted detail - and it also messes with the overall exposure. Try it - with D-Lighting on, take a series of shots from underexposed to overexposed, and see how D-Lighting tries to make every shot look the way the camera thinks it should look. I have actually had to go in and darken shadows in photos taken with D-Lighting accidentally engaged.</p>

<p>I use it primarily for getting decent shots in very high-contrast daylight conditions.</p>

<p>Just my way of doing things - no one way is correct but Shun's advice does seem to the the current mainstream thinking if you're willing to post-process every shot.</p>

 

<p>I have heard that the current DSLR filenaming convention is some sort of industry standard and not entirely arbitrary on Nikon's part. As far as I'm aware it is not user-alterable on any body.</p>

 

<p>I don't know about the non-D version but the front element on the D lens is a cheap protective element. I had mine replaced before selling it. The cost for the part from Nikon was around $25. It's definitely not a reason to stay away from an otherwise-good lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A lens keeper would annoy the hell out of me.</p>

<p>Have you considered putting on a filter and not worrying so much about a cap? Tiffen protective filter is glass, easy to clean, and probably as cheap as a real Nikon cap anyway.</p>

 

<p>I started out with a D40 and quickly upgraded to a D90 and feel it was a good decision. The D90 offers some valuable additional features, the most important of which is the in-body focus motor, which in my case has made it a far cheaper camera to own than the D40 - consequently the upgrade was a no-brainer. Other important aspects of the D90 for my use are Active D-Lighting (which KR also points out as a major worthwhile feature, by the way), second control wheel (very important IMO), sensor cleaning, and yes, the extra pixels, useful for cropping and also if you ever print big - even if you don't now, you may want to at some time in the future, and more pixels will help for that.</p>

<p>I liked my D40 and wouldn't mind having another, but honestly I wouldn't want to do without those features in even a backup or casual-walkaround camera.</p>

<p>As for whether the pictures are actually better with the D90, I didn't notice an appreciable difference. However, my learning curve in digital was very steep at the time so it's difficult for me to tell whether the camera really made a difference. I haven't studied the issue since I have no real interest in looking back. I'm sure either camera can make outstanding images but I feel the D90 is in a real sweet spot in terms of price and performance in the DSLR world and I wouldn't want to be without mine.</p>

<p>By the way I agree with you Mike, and think it's strange the way this site attempts to censor KR's website and opinions. Nevertheless it is a private site, has a right to do as it wishes, and it is a valuable resource as well. It's always good to have multiple channels for information and I read and enjoy both and then make my own decisions. On this particular point I disagree with KR.</p>

<p>Hope this is somewhat helpful to the OP.</p>

<p>I have found in my own experimentation that gray skin tones are usually the result of an imperfect white balance.</p>

<p>Also, if you are using Nikon's Picture Controls, I am not usually happy with the results of "Portrait" mode. I actually find that "Landscape" gives more realistic and healthier-looking skin most of the time. With NX2 you can always switch the Picture Control after the capture, which can be a handy shortcut to achieving a realistic and appealing look in the final image.</p>

 

<p>I got to see the '88 motorcycle GP at Spa-Francorchamps in Belgium, which was where I was living at the time. Those were the days of Eddie Lawson, Wayne Rainey, Kevin Schwantz and Wayne Gardner. I always thought Lawson was the best ever.</p>

<p>If I have any pictures of it they were taken with a Minolta X-700 and an awful Vivitar 70-210mm zoom and show nothing more than blurs on the long (longest of any GP circuit then, probably now as well) front straight. It looks like you're prepared to have much more success than I did!</p>

<p>I'll look forward to having a look at your pics.</p>

 

<p>Great thread as always!</p>

<p>I'm late this time but it's still Wednesday here in Colorado.</p>

<p>This isn't my typical subject matter but this fellow was begging to have his picture taken, striking various poses within easy capture range under light snowfall.</p><div></div>

<p>Unless my understanding is severely impaired, depth of field has NOTHING to do with sensor size. The lens projects light the same way regardless of what sensor you put behind it.</p>

<p>The reason a larger sensor gives you narrower depth of field is because the FOCAL LENGTH you use is different - however, for a given focal length, the depth of field will be the same regardless of what camera the lens is mounted on.</p>

<p>As to the specific question, if bokeh is a concern then likely none of the Nikon consumer zooms will satisfy. I love my 16-85 but the bokeh, if you look at it, is poor. </p>

<p>The degree of blur is another question, and for that, lens aperture is the important factor.</p>

<p>Either way, to improve on the 18-200's blur in terms of quality or degree you'd probably need to look at third-party or pro-grade zooms of f/2.8 aperture, or primes.</p>

 

<p>Most likely the best way to tell the difference between the real thing and a fake is by performance rather than appearance.</p>

<p>I received a non-Nikon battery as an extra freebie with my D90 - it would only charge to about 65% and loses charge quite quickly.</p>

<p>I have also bought one of these Chinese "genuine" Nikon batteries, and it charged to 99% on its first charge, same as the original battery did. I'm confident it's the real thing. </p>

<p>On the other hand I recently bought a "genuine" Nikon lens cap that is a subtly obvious counterfeit - also on Ebay.</p>

 

<p>I was glancing through a photo magazine at a newsstand recently and looked at a test of the new Nikon D5000. They commented that it surprisingly had high-ISO performance "at least" one full stop worse than that of the D90 - basically, a bit more than one stop under most conditions. A real surprise, if true. I think - but am not sure - that it was Popular Photography.</p>

<p>Anybody seen any evidence or corroboration of this? If true then it certainly changes the calculus when it comes to buying or recommending one of these. </p>

 

<p>Is the Wednesday Pic early today or am I just up late?</p>

<p>In any case we had a trip to Santa Fe, NM this weekend and I liked some shots I got of the St. Francis of Assisi Basilica around dusk one evening.</p><div></div>

<p>A straight-up scenic shot for me today. Taken near the tiny no-services settlement of "Greenland" between Colorado Springs and Denver, during one of the few weeks of the year when it lives up to its name. I've always wanted to capture this mesas-and-monuments topography photographically but have not found it easy to do.</p><div></div>

<p>Since this is a one-time sort of need, why not spend more on a better lens up-front and then recoup your investment by selling upon your return. If you buy used, and buy well, you won't lose a penny.</p>

<p>Two things that consistently come up here from people who have done the safari thing: 1) Need the longest lens possible, and 2) need zoom otherwise you'll miss lots of opportunities. The 80-400 would seem to be the best choice, or perhaps a 80-200 or 70-200 f/2.8 combined with a teleconverter. </p>

<p> </p>