Wouter Willemse

I use Lux, which is free. It's quite OK. If I look now at the app store, though, there is a lot of apps with that name.... I think at the back-end, these applications will not differ much in measurements as they rely on what iOS delivers. The metering on the iPhone seems very much some sort of matrix metering, and with a relatively wide lens (which may include a lot of sky, for example), it means you have to think a bit about where you point it if you have a scene with big differences in light levels. In my view, if you need an app like this often, it's worth spending some money on a real lightmeter, though. But opinions may vary on that.

+1. While the default DSLR image may look more washed out, it also has a lot more leeway to tweak it exactly to your liking in a decent piece of software, and get the best from it. JPEGs from camera are not the best point to get started though, since it means you already started with throwing data away. With a raw image, you gain a fair amount of additional flexibility, at the cost of having to convert on a PC from raw to jpeg or tiff when you want to share or print. But with good software, again, that is very low effort. Might not be a bad thing. I would advice though to immediately start with a program that will grow with you. Capture NX-D is nice(ish) for a freebie, but in the long run getting something like Lightroom or Capture One is money very well spent. Likewise for Affinity Photo or Photoshop if you need more heavy-lifting editing tools. You will also easier find courses (online or in the 3D world), tutorials and books on these software titles.

Leica R6, Summicron-R 50mm, Acros 100 in Perceptol 1+1

A couple of photos from last weekend. Both: Leica R6, Summicron-R 35mm, Fuji Acros 100 in Perceptol 1+1

Have you tried using A4 as size? Which program do you use for printing? With the Pixma Pro models, there should be Canon Print Studio Pro (which should also work as automation plugin to LR - I cannot vouch for it since I do not use LR) which is a very convenient piece of software to manage your printing. It has a clear simple tickbox "borderless", for example, and it's relatively easy to set up profiles and use colour profiles.

I do use them (with the CAM 3500 module). The outer areas are less sensitive, so for fast work they're sometimes a bit infuriating, but in good light it's not often a big issue for me. Focus and recompose is OK if you have enough depth of field, but at shallow depth of field, close distances, it doesn't work since you rotate while recomposing, which means you move out of the plane of focus. That said, ultimately I trust my eyes - viewfinders work well enough for me in that respect.

Owning both a D700 and a D810: you do see the difference, even in relatively small prints (A4) you just notice there is tad more detail. The key difference however is about 2 stops more dynamic range. The D700 had a fine dynamic range, the D8x0 have an excellent dynamic range. ISO6400 performance of the D8x0 is better than a D700 too for identical sized prints. As much as I liked my D700 (and still do actually), the newer cameras do show visible improvements, and if you haven't tried, perhaps it's safer to not assume it won't be so. In addition, the average price that is being asked now for 2nd hand D700 bodies is just too high. Great cameras, but too often overpriced. As for the "shutter is rated to XXX amount of actuations", please do notice that Nikon does not guarantee that is will do that amount of actuations. It only states the average amount of actuations where failure is most likely to be expected (MTBF). Meaning a shutter can fail after 10 actuations, of after 10 million: there is no way to know. So, when buying 2nd hand, it's not so much about the "number of clicks" but rather about the overall condition of the body, and its age combined with the number of actuations - which will tell you how heavy it was used. If those 50k actuations were done in 1 year, I'd be more hesitant than with a body with 100k actuations in 5 years, for example.

Just to be sure: On the D7000 with this Sigma, does the metering already indicate a 2-stop overexposure, compared to the D90 with the same lens? Or is the 2-stop overexposure only visible in the image once you made an exposure? Is it correct to assume the 18-55 has near identical exposure on the D90 and D7000, and that the D90 with the Sigma lens has comparable exposure to the D90 with the 18-55? Assuming the Sigma lens has a dedicated aperture ring (unlike the 18-55G), do you have this ring set to the smallest aperture (f/22 or f/32 probably) ? The reason to ask for the first point is that metering is done with a lens wide-open, and the aperture is only closed down when making the exposure. If the metering is already off, it means the D7000 does not seem to communicate correctly with the lens. If it only happens on exposure, it could be related to the linkage that closes the aperture during exposure instead.

Not sure if it helps, but to resolve such issues (I've seen this glitch occassionally), you can store settings, and then retrieve those settings directly from the File menu. Saves a lot of clicking around, especially when using more than 1 scanner with rather different configuration needs. From VueScan, I scan B&W film directly as greyscale. I've tried scanning in colour, but found no advantages while files are a lot larger.

Personally, I never got the attraction of grips; I never found any issue with a 300 f/4 or 80-200 f/2.8 and never felt additional weight in the camera would make it more balanced. But I think it's highly personal, as Hector said, and probably very much related to the size of hands and the way you're used to holding a camera. I think it's a pity Nikon doesn't invest a bit more into "serious" DX lenses. With the D7x00 and D500, they've got very good tools, but the choice of lenses is a strange mixed bag. It does keep the message alive that DX isn't a serious format (but rather a stepping stone to FX), and I really wonder that's a smart marketing message. That said, I am a happy FX shooter, prefering it mainly for the much better viewfinders (as I mostly use manual focus lenses) and the extra bit of shallow depth of field it can deliver - it suits my style. But I think the choice between DX and FX should be made based on such considerations, and not the default idea that seems to live with many photographers, that FX is the holy grail and the passport to "serious shooting". But the marketing message seems to work.....

Artificially trying to combine the car-theme with the village where Rick van N. last posted photos were shot (if I'm not mistaken)..... a Vanquish in Heusden. Both Leica R6, Elmar-R 180mm, Delta 100 in HC110. Shot a while ago.... hopefully more recent work later this week!

Well, the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G and 85 f/1.8G are very solid performers too. The AF-D 28mm f/2.8 is probably the weaker link, but it won't be terrible either. In fact, I'd worry with none of these lenses on a D8x0. They'll do the job just fine. Frankly, the "camera shows lensfaults" problem should be seen in perspective. Yes, these cameras are more capable of showing the limitations of lenses than lower-resolution cameras are. That does not mean that lenses suddenly are worse or no longer useful or suitable; in fact they're as good as they ever were, and possibly the combination of lens and camera yield a better resolution than before. It'll not be less in any case. And, as Ben rightly notices, some of these issues require large prints or pixelpeeping, but at normal magnifications, the problem simply isn't visible. My favourite (and most used) lenses are older AiS lenses, and when I went from a D700 to a D810, I was curious to see if these lenses were as bad as some people frequently claim. Well, frankly, they're not. Some are downright excellent, some clearly have limits, but still show a solid increase in resolved details compared to the D700. So, they continue to be my most used lenses, since they are still the same lenses. The whole resolution-limit story shouldn't be made too important: there is a lot more to a good lens or photo than just resolution and sharpness in the extreme corners. So, if you have Ai/AiS lenses you like, there is no reason to not try them on your future new camera. They'll work just fine.

From a quick look at the site, my impression is also that a lot of those photos fall into the focal length range that your 18-55 already covers. Some wider, some longer - but the 18-55 covers a lot of the "sweet spots". Probably more essential to get this kind of photos is a solid tripod (and maybe a ND filter for long exposures in daylight), more than a specific lens. But in the end, it is not just about doing exactly as some other photographer, but you have to go with your own ideas. If you feel the widest end of your 18-55 is not allowing you a wide enough view, then a wide-angle lens is a sensible addition to the toolbox. Just do not expect that adding a wider lens will give you great, or even just good, results from the start. They need practise and a good sense for composition. Still, if you feel you cannot get wide enough, getting a wide angle lens makes sense and will mean you start doing the practise, and get the needed experience to make wide angle shots work. Another thing to consider: the photographer who made those shots probably lives in or near Wales, and has plenty access to those spots. He will also have plenty knowledge on where to be, at which hour in which season to get the best colours, and most important the best light. It is, frankly, not very realistic to expect to get photos like this in a place you visit for the very first time. Don't take this as harsh criticism: none of us can pull that off easily. Being familiar with a place and having experience with the light and seasonal colours counts for an awful lot in landscape photography. Not wanting to sound overly negative here, but just to make sure you get the expectations right: getting an additional or different lens will not get you the photos as you see them on that website, and as a tourist, odds are you simply will not catch the right moment either. So, avoid making the decision to get a lens (or not) based on photos of somebody else, but rather go with what your own experience tells you: do you miss extra reach at the 18mm end, or the 55mm end? Go from there. And if you cannot tell for yourself what you find lacking, buy nothing. Except maybe a solid tripod - for landscape photos, never a bad investment.

If you studied and read a lot, and reached a conclusion - do yourself a favour, and stick to your plan :-) A lot of people will blindly recommend other lenses, without knowing how much you actually want to spend.... so, you run a risk of getting confused with all options available..... In short, there is very little wrong with the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, and if the price is right, it will serve you well (as for the tests Andrew mentioned, note that most tests seem to prefer the f/4-5.6 version over the f/3.5 version - so, indeed there is sample variation). Anyway, two things are important: 1. You need "HSM" on a Sigma lens; as Andrew notes, it's the equivalent of the AF-S designation of Nikon, and your camera requires this for autofocus. 2. Make sure you get the lens well before your trip, so that you can test it and make sure it's 100% OK before you leave. Also, it takes some time to get used to using wide angle lenses, so practise as much as possible before the trip. And most important, enjoy the trip.

Agree with the idea of the D7200, and if you want full frame, indeed D610 or D750 (though it will be hard to find within your budget, but IMHO well worth stretching the budget a bit). You may find a D700 within your budget too, and though they're really great bodies, they seem a bit overvalued in the 2nd hand market (so the value for money is questionable, I think).

Dear Rex, every full frame Nikon delivers good picture quality, equal compatility with Ai manual focus lenses, similar ease of use and battery life isn't much of a problem with any of them. Aesthetics is a completely personal thing, so none of us can really say what you like or not. And the only one that really looks different from all the others is the Df anyway. What kind of money would you be willing to spend? Which specifications of a camera matter more to your style of shooting (speed, resolution, require fast AF or not so much, etc.) ? Those criteria will make it a lot easier to give a reasonable advice.

From ye' ole days...... May 2007 D80, Tokina 100mm macro

I have no experience with this camera, but from what I read, probably the easiest way is using a mobile device in between. Connect to the camera wifi with a mobile phone or tablet, and use the client-app for your cloud storage on the mobile device to upload the images. [edit]: posted near same time with Andrew so lots of duplicate info....

Finally after ages got something to share in these threads..... Yashica D, Fuji Acros 100 in Perceptol Both Kiev 2a, with a Helios-103 and a yellow filter; Fomapan 100 in Perceptol

Since Nikon has nothing faster than f/1.2, any guess about the 1/3 stop increments between f/1 and f/1.4 would be entirely academic. As for the f/1.2 lens, it only has stops at f/1.2 and f/1.4 and next f/2. The 1/3rd stops between f/1.4 and f/2 on a Nikon, as far as I know, are f/1.6 and f/1.8.

The thread was resurrected by a new poster with a new but related question. So while the thread has reached puberty, it's still relevant today it seems :-)

Perhaps try stand development with a very dilute developer? I've got little experience with it, so no real results to share. Rodinal seems the typical recommended developer to try it with (1:100 for 1 hour, with only some agitation at the start and maybe a whirl at 30 min.), but no idea if this increases any risk of fogging or not. Anyway, just to share the idea - hopefully more experienced people can give more detail on it.

Frankly, with such advice, and such prices.... I would not return at that shop. Many ebay shops have a return policy, just keep an eye open for seller reputation, and buying on eBay works well enough. I don't have a truckload of experience with MF gear, but my only entry in this field is a nice starter camera: a Yashica D. Cheap, light, silent, discreet, and mine so far is perfectly reliable too. No metering, no thrills camera; optically probably not the best, but it doesn't disappoint either. And I paid less than a fifth of what that shop is trying to make you pay for a camera. It is true that prices for TLRs on eBay are relatively high, but with patience you will find this model for less than $100.

Tri-X in Rodinal for the grainy, harsh look. Ilford user otherwise. Note the original thread is from 2003, so it was a lot closer to (or around) the change to Tri-X 400. Perhaps it influences some of the findings in the original thread.

I've been given a pile of Kodak ColorPlus 200 that has expired around 2008, and has been kept at some sort of room temperature in a pretty warm room. A lot of this film is still OK, and can be used at its nominal ISO200 without much issue. But it's not consistently so. I've shot a fair amount of it now, and while many rolls are fine (as fine as this film gets anyway), some rolls also have shown pretty heavy colour casts. For scanned images, it's typically the difference between "a bit of editing" and "needs some serious work" but I've also had one case where blue was so lacking that getting the overall colour balance right was close to impossible. So, while the expiry dates may typically have been rather generous, do consider that it may be a hit-and-miss affair. Perfectly fine for fun photos and experiments, but better avoided for any serious work.