Wouter Willemse

<p>Whoever told you was right for the SB700 (not sure for the SB900, I don't have that). It's also how it is scritten in the <a href="http://cdn-10.nikon-cdn.com/pdf/manuals/Speedlights/SB-700.pdf">user guide of the SB700</a> (see page C-2). You will see on the display of the flash that it changes from TTL BL to TTL once you change from Matrix to Spot. Very easy to do and confirm for yourself, actually.<br /> __<br /> [edit]: Shun, that does not work for the SB700, there cycling between TTL and TTL-BL is exclusively done via the camera metering.</p>

<p>As much as I love many of the older primes, I would not get the wider ones if corner sharpness is your biggest concern. Let alone the older zooms. None of them are great there - and frankly, neither is the 20 f/2.8. Plus - why get a D800 (not cheap and nearly 1 kg) and next find cheap and light lens for it? Seems rather unbalanced to me.<br> If money is tight, I would go with the 24-85VR Shun suggested; I do have the 24-120VR myself, and I'm happy with what it does but some people insist the corners are bad; and it does vignette quite seriously at wider apertures, and mine seems less sharp at infinity than it is at closer ranges. Very good lens, but not cheap, nor light and not great value for money.<br> If you'd go for the older primes: getting a 28 between a 24 and a 35 seems rather superfluous to me; just 24 (or 20!) and 35 would do just fine. I've got the 24 f/2.8 (Ai); it's not utterly sharp in the corners, but not a bad landscape lens by any means. For a the 35 - I have the f/2D which is a good choice for landscapes, and the Ai-S f/1.4 which I wouldn't recommend for landscapes (it is sharpest around f/4-5.6 and declines above f/8). When I carry primes only, actually the 105 f/2.5 is a lens I end using quite a lot too. So, if you're OK with primes (if you find your 20 f/2.8 performs acceptably, they should be fine), in my view you could restrict it to adding a 35 f/2 and a 105 f/2.5 and have a pretty good line-up.</p>

<p>How to explain in 140 characters? #twitter #image ....<br> There is an explanation for iOS, Android and Web on this help page: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20156423-posting-photos-on-twitter#</p>

<p>The smallest option with a decent camera (no 10MP, but megapixels aren't the most important thing in getting quality images anyway) is the iPhone, closely followed by the Sony Experia Z1 Compact or Nokia Lumia 920/925. All others are significantly larger. So it much depends on what you see as "large" - I have the Lumia 920 myself, and to me, that's quite large enough. Others may find it still small, or way too large...<br> Really small and a good camera - nothing out there, as small for some reason translates as "budget phone" and cameras are among the things where companies save the pennies to hit lower price points.</p>

<p>Not sure whether the aperture blades are in fact round, but according to Photozone, its bokeh characteristics should be very good: the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/285-tamron-af-180mm-f35-sp-di-ld-if-macro-nikon-review--test-report">Tamron 180mm f/3.5 Macro</a>.</p> <p>For what it's worth, the best lenses I have with regards to bokeh (Nikkor 105 f/2.5, Tokina 100mm f/2.8) neither have rounded blades. There is more to it than just that, so I would really just watch example photos (plenty photosites where you can filter by lens) and draw your own conclusions based on what you see. Bokeh is highly subjective anyway.</p>

<p>Just to confirm, Joseph, new installation of ViewNX 2.9.2 on Win7 x64 that never had ViewNX2 before, and all warnings work. So as Art found, it's probably really that setting.<br> Glad it's solved, Art... I don't know if Nikon is going to listen much to feedback on ViewNX2, as they're busy with Capture NX-D that is two steps forward, 1,5 step back coming from ViewNX2.... but worth the shot!</p>

<p>There is a wall, there are flowers... close enough for this week's theme then, I hope....</p><div></div>

<p>I updated to 2.9.2 yesterday; since I moved to another tool, I'm not too punctual anymore with updating the Nikon software. I'll have a look later this week to doublecheck, on Win7 x64 Home Premium, and let you know.</p>

<p>I'm surprised, Roy, to see prices increased so much (but yeah, a quick check shows $300 to $450 for the AiS f/3.5) - about 1,5 years ago I paid €140 for the AiS 20mm f/3.5 on the large auction site; at that time, the 20mm f/2.8 (AF-D or AiS) hovered between €500 and €650.<br> I guess I should stop telling it is a great little lens - it drove the price up way too far.</p>

<blockquote> <p>who shoots wide angle lenses wide open?</p> </blockquote> <p>I do :-) Not a lot, but it can have its uses for close-up photography.<br> When I moved to a full frame, my quest for a wide angle passed the lenses you mention. I was almost at the point of buying the Zeiss 21mm (which optically looks to be awesome, but it's large). The main reason why I not chose either AF-D or AiS 20mm f/2.8 is that they're still quite costly 2nd hand - a testament that they are good lenses, but from what I saw from reviews and photos, not mind-blowing. Given the price it commands, and the fact that all my other lenses are 52mm filters instead of 62 - I passed on it.<br> The Voigtländer is tempting - nice, small, not too expensive. But in the end, I found a AiS 20mm f/3.5 for really little money, it uses 52mm filters just like the rest of my primes and it's smaller and lighter than the Voigtländer. I did not expect great performance, but it's better than expected, and the more I use it, the more I like this lens.<br> Yes, the corners aren't great at any aperture, but none of these lenses are (except the most more expensive Zeiss). It isn't great at infinity, but really sharp at close distances, also at wider apertures. It's really very flare resistant and its colour rendering is much better than I expected (nice saturation, no washed out colours, but not too saturated, a nice subtle rendering overall - not super contrasty but not veiled either). A nice little gem of a lens.<br> So, maybe as a backup-consideration if the 20mm f/2.8 isn't to your liking after all. The f/3.5 is about 3 to 4 times cheaper.</p>

<p>Much what William W and Sarah wrote; the requirements of the image drive the settings. This can include wanting a bit more noise, or wanting shake or subject movement. The bursts tend to work for me as well, with paying proper attention to your posture, breathing, gentle operation of the shutter.<br> I think the question is not meant that way, but it seems to imply a bit that photos ought to be pinsharp and smooth. And that's simply not the case. Neither noise nor shake are evils, but limits that can be used creatively. One of the first things I try to think about when hitting a ceiling is how I can make use of the limits imposed on me, rather than thinking in terms of sacrifice. Can I use it to make my image work in a different way?</p> <p>Personally, I do not care a whole lot about noise. My camera (admittedly not a Canon EOS) does well up to ISO6400 thereabouts, my raw conversion software does fine noise reduction in case of need. So noise in the real world is a pixel-peeping problem most of the time, to me. If I am really pushing the limits, then usually the light is too low to generate adequate contrast and highlights anyway and will leave a rather bland photo. Time to let it go, really - the image will have worse problems than shake or noise. In short, if I'm really pushed to choose between the evils, the ISO goes up. But to me, that's not choosing for a lesser evil, that's about still being able to get a shot. Show me film that performed at ISO3200 the way your 7D can perform at that ISO - the current state of technology is pretty awesome, it enables more than it limits.</p>

<p>I just tried (version 2.9, 64-bits on Win8.1 Pro x64), and I get warnings whatever I try to delete, using either keyboard, icon or rightclick/delete. Did you try 'Edit -> Settings -> Dialog/Alert/Backup -> Reset the "Don't show this dialog again" setting' to re-activate all warnings?</p>

<p>Steve, the beauty about digital is no cost per shot: just try. See if it works for you, if not, try different settings. On a whole, I'd say your settings should work. For sports, the main thing is getting AF configuration right, and 9-points dynamic AF with continuous AF should work.<br /> But by all means, DO try all other settings, to learn what they do, how they react. Some settings (i.e. shooting in Aperture-priority mode) are down to preference. I can imagine WB is set "manually" to be able to shoot JPEG in long bursts as the D7100 cannot do very long bursts of RAW? If you shoot RAW, no need to bother with WB at all.<br> The point is: you can only learn about <em>your</em> preferences by experience. There are no miracle-settings-recipes. So, enjoy shooting a lot and experiment!</p>

Tulip fields, just before the harvest<div></div>

<p>Often when discussing photos with others, I hear "I would have done it this way, moved over there, framed like that" etc... and I do really try to refrain from doing that. Partially because I feel the image should be 'judged' as it is, not as what you think it ought to be, and moreover because each photographer is another person with other ideas, approaches etc. So, yes, I too am usually interested in understanding how somebody works, thinks and approaches his work. I learn a lot more from that, I think.</p> <p>That said: often it ends up being good intentions; I do compare. It happens unintentionally, especially if I've been to the same place or dealt with a same subject. It's inevitable, it seems, certainly when speaking with photographers with equal or less experience. But then, it can start discussion, which can lead to actually discovering how they work, their approach and so on - so it's not necessarily a bad thing as that otherwise might not have happened.<br />And quite often I end up prety short in my comparisons, seeing what others did (in my view) better is giving me also something to aspire to, things to try. Seeing how some approaches simply do not work for me also helps me understand better what does work for me. Comparisons aren't that bad, as long as the conclusion is a bit more elaborate than right versus wrong, or good versus bad.</p>

<p>Coming from the yellow side of the fence, I can just say: you'd be welcome in the Nikon camp, but you won't gain a whole lot. Megapixels become quickly a diminishing return.</p> <blockquote> <p>upgrade the MP in the quest for better IQ and detail in my creation</p> </blockquote> <p>Better IQ honestly means nothing. Image quality isn't quantifiable, and even if resolution comes into play, up to which level does it so really? Does moving from 6000 pixels on the long end to 7000px really make a huge impact? Even in really large prints? Really? (indeed, I seriously do not believe it does have huge impact).</p> <p>Whether or not Nikon has the lenses to match the resolution of the 36MP sensor (and of course they do, just as Canon does - they're very evenly matched with some great lenses in the red camp, some great lenses in the yellow, and some dogs on both sides as well), it really doesn't matter all that much. It is about the end result: is a D800 with 500 f/4VR going to give you clearly superior images versus a 5D Mk. III with 500 f/4IS? In my view: no, you won't notice the difference in real world images. If I'd have your gear and the money, I'd look at the 5D Mk. III first to have the much improved AF for birds in flight. I think it can have more of an impact than a few million pixels more.</p>

<p>I'm neither professional photographer, nor lawyer, but you're touching on a point of simply doing business. To pick up on what Marcus said in his last post: if you want to start building your own business, do you want to start with fighting with other photographers, or better to build a good and possibly durable professional relationships? Stick to your promises, even if they seem less smart in retrospect. It's about having a chance at earning respect and establishing a good name - you get those chances only once. Forget about the money, you tried to invest in your future. Could be the best $200-300 you ever spent.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Twice as many bits, but the staircase and thus gamut is the same. More bits isn't more gamut.</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly. I think the confusion is coming when you start to (heavily) edit the picture. Try to make the 20 feet staircase look like a 40-feet one, and you will have resp. 2 and 1 feet steps. The point is, you cannot add steps (bits) after the fact - so whatever steps you have, have to cover the distance of the stairs. And while 1 feet steps may still make for an elegant undisturbed gradation, 2 feet steps become visibly blocked (banding, more usually called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterization">posterization</a>).</p>

<p>Don't apologise for still learning, but just as a generic note: lenses are worth learning a bit more about - the specifications of your lens make or break the creative options it gives you - close focussing being a nice example. So regardless of the more specific advices on which lens to get, generically understanding what's what in lenses is very useful.</p> <p>If it's mainly for flowers, I'd be torn between the 40mm and the 60mm options (also worth considering is the Tamron 60mm f/2). The main thing is how much of the details you want. The working distance of the 40mm is indeed little - IF you go down to 1:1 magnification. But in many shots you probably won't, and be between 1:2 and 1:3 magnification. And the wide angle of view of the 40mm allows a bit more context for those kind of shots. If you really want to get the miniscule details, then the 60mm or even one of the 90-105mm macro lenses (any brand - they're all excellent). You can use your current lens to check for yourself how the different focal length changes "the look" of an image; it can focus quite close so it makes a decent comparison.<br> <br />There are also close-up screw-in filters (diopters), as Stephen mentioned, but the good quality ones are hard(er) to find these days. I've always heard good things about the Canon 500 filter, but I never used one. They're a lot cheaper than lenses, though if this kind of work is your passion, you'll end up wanting a lens all the same.</p>

<p>The web is full of assumptions on quality control. The fact is, without knowing the quantities shipped of a product, even the number of anecdotes becomes meaningless. In the end, it is about knowing failure rates, and that kind of data falls in the category "<em>who know, don't tell; who tell, don't know</em>".<br> Anecdotes as such without context are just stories. Whoever tells it may be an expert, may also be a complete novice. The number of threads on cameras with "AF problems" on higher-end models (i.e. EOS 7D, Nikon D7000) on various forums is infinite - and 99% of them caused by users who do not know how to configure the AF. And frequently they blame the Quality Control of the company, before blaming themselves.</p> <p>It's your money; only you can decide if taking the risk is worth it to you.</p>

<p>If I delete images via ViewNX2, they end up in the Recycle Bin and are restored easily? ViewNX2 does not do a "permanent" delete itself? Second, I think the "Warn when deleting" dialog is an option that can be enabled/disabled in the ViewNX settings (but I currently cannot check unfortunately; would be Settings -> Dialog/..something else.. / ..another thing..).<br> Personally, when I used ViewNX2 as a 'workflow' tool, I used the red label ("1") to indicate the files I wanted to delete. After reviewing, I selected the red labelled files, and deleted them that way in one go.</p>

<p>Peter, thanks, I think I use the exposure lock, but I am not convinced I fully understand what I do.... I just need some more experience with VueScan to get the best from the slides, that's for sure. Thanks for the tips, I'll start there.</p>

<p>Good point Ilkka, forgot about that that lens :-) Choices choices....</p>

<p>Harry, for negatives, you can attribute it to the scanner; I only did some sharpening on the samples provided, no other edits. The problem (and it could be what Peter wrote - hitting the Dmax-wall) I find more with slides. I'll just have to experiment more with them.<br> Overall, as said, I am happy with this scanner. Especially on your side of the ocean, it's very affordable and it gives me solid results.</p>