Wouter Willemse

Just to be sure: the marking in focal length for a APS-C lens is identical to a FX lens. So 35mm is 35mm - the resulting angle of view is different between full frame and APS-C, but if you get a full frame 35mm lens it will look and work like a 35mm APS-C lens would. So, no need to discount full frame lenses, since they don't need to make you worry about crop factor at all. For the wide and ultra wide lenses, you should stick to APS-C lenses (full frame lenses with the same focal lengths will be very expensive), but if you'd be after something like 24mm, the full frame primes could be perfectly fine candidates.

The D810 has nearly the same AF unit as the D7200; it's probably slightly better but basically the same amount of AF points, same options, same behaviour. It's still a very competent AF system compared to a lot of today's camera, but the newer high-end cameras (like the D850) sure have it beat.

There are people who envy the success of others. There are people bragging about their success. The line between the two is thin, variable and sometimes missing. So in my view, it's terribly hard to tell others how they should treat any of this. One can only hope for good taste and reasonable common sense (rare as it may be) of the community, and try to be empathic about it. A community guideline of sorts wouldn't help, as it would likely degrade every such discussion into a discussion whether the right rules were followed, and force moderators to act like police.

Frankly, I never saw the "objective" lens test sites as the only or even main go-to sites. I still check OpticalLimits (former Photozone) on some interval; they seem to still test though things certainly slowed down. Their technical testing seems fine; though I have little means to validate. PhotographyLife also does a fair amount of tests, and overall I find their reviews fair and level-headed. Both sites are testing a limited amount of samples - so there is always some level of risk there. No idea how other sites compare in that respect. But personally, I feel these objective tests really just paint part of the picture. There are a fair number of speciality lenses that test mediocre or bad, while the resulting images of those lenses can be very pleasing. And some lenses that test extremely well seem to prioritize sharpness and resolution to the point where the rendering becomes a bit harsh. All of this is highly personal and basically impossible to test objectively - still, I rather have a lens that renders images in a way I love than I'd like to have a lens with perfect scores that renders in a way I don't like. So I've always found having multiple subjective reviews is far more valuable than objective test results. Of course it needs level-headed writers, but writing styles are usually revealing enough. There are plenty of sites, forums, blogs where people will discuss their pros and cons, and most important show example photos to underline their point. Pictures do speak a thousand words in this case.

Frankly, if you're struggling with these settings and features at this point, buy nothing for now. Keep the money safe in a bank account, until you are more familiar with photography basics and better understand your own needs and photography style. Only at that point, start spending money on gear again, so you'll be sure to spend the money on the items you will benefit most. Might be that 50-135 mentioned, but it could also be a macro-lens, or a wide angle. This article is a good start on photography basics. If you prefer a book, I'd recommend to start with Understanding Exposure, which happens to be from the same author as that linked article. Don't. Not yet anyway. Even if Pentax isn't as rapid releasing new cameras as some of the others, and may have a lesser current catalog of lenses, it is still a very viable system. Most important is that you like using the camera, and it sure sounds like you like using the Pentax better than the Canon - stick with what you like. Also again it matters to first understand your needs, based on your photography. Maybe Pentax has all the lenses you need, and will work just perfectly fine for you. There are also tons of old(er) lenses for Pentax that will work, so plenty of options. Seriously, make no decisions to buy/sell until you grasp better what your real needs are; it's easy to spend a load of money on lenses and cameras you don't need, and your photos will be no better for it. Spending money where it counts for your needs, though, can help make better photos.

Thanks for the compliment.... appreciate it. I have to admit, that image was not taken on XP2, it's Delta 100 developed in Perceptol (which I find a great combination of film/developer). That said, I have worked with XP2 and really find it great film. XP2 is in my experience easier to scan than normal B&W film, so in 'hybrid' workflows, it makes a great choice. I only stopped using XP2 because I like developing film myself. And thanks, now I am sure I need to return to Berlin :-)

Quite accurate, and certainly accurate enough for B&W film, which can cope with some deviation from ideal exposure (slide film is a lot less forgiving). If you prefer carrying a lightmeter, though, I can recommend the base model Sekonic that is available today, the L308S. Works well, has incident and reflective metering, not as cheap as older lightmeters can be found, but personally, since I knew I would be using it pretty often, I felt it was worth the extra money. Another (cheap) option for a lightmeter: there are apps for smartphones to use its camera as a lightmeter. They usually work quite well, only more 'complex' situations (low light, or very high contrast) they will trip up. As an introduction on paper, personally I would start with "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. It's a very accessible, clear explanation into the core basics.

Even if they also will celebrate the 100th b-day for commercial availability of Leica cameras, 2024 is a long time off to announce a new model. So if they do anything, we'll probably know about it in approx. 5 years.

Most of the opinions I see/read on the internet around camera introductions are from fanboys who can see only black and white and exagerate the flaws and virtues to no end. Some are so over the top focussed on spec sheets, they only leave you wondering whether that person actually ever tried any serious photography at all. All those opinions have little to do with reality. And, yes, some sites attract more fanboys than others (p.net is fortunately relatively free, though exceptions exist) and some brands attract more. So, all we see now are the Nikon fanboys defending the new cameras at all cost, and the Sony fanboys picking on every little flaw they can find. Frankly, 'Leica cred' falls straight into the fanboy territory too. And when the next mirrorless camera lands, that brand will go into this cycle. And so the internet keeps itself entertained and all large photography sites will feed us clickbait links to keep the useless flow of comments and spec-sheet opinions going. And as said above, none of this has any bearing on actual photography. Use the gear that works for you. What others think about it is pretty irrelevant until they either know your photography well enough to understand your needs or unless your gear actually doesn't work for you, but against you.

I've used TF-4 only with Pyrocat developed, but I doubt that shouldn't have any impact on fixing times. I stuck to 8 min. fixing with fresh fixer. Rinsing afterwards, I use the 'normal' Ilford schedule to wash followed by a wash in photoflo for a couple of minutes.

Blurring the lines between classic gear and digital a bit more.... a quick snap with my smartphone of a print made last weekend. The original image is made with classic manual (fm2 with 105 f/2.5 or R6 with 90 f/2 - not sure), scanned and printed as a large negative on a transparency, to finally make this cyanotype print....

In terms of organising, PS Elements isn't bad, but Lightroom is a step up. For editing, Lightroom is much better geared towards the normal, standard edits, and makes a lot lighter work of editing lots of images. PS Elements as an editor has actually some more options, but it's much more for editing image per image - more editing power, less workflow. In my view, you're best served with Lightroom or an alternative to it. The free alternatives in the space unfortunately aren't on the same level as the paid applications. For keeping things organised, CaptureOne can also work very well. The non-Sony version (as the post above seems to imply it only exists for Sony - this is certainly not the case) is not cheap, but it is very capable. If you prefer an editor like Photoshop is (so more editing options, but less workflow and organising features), I'd recommend Affinity Photo over PS Elements - it's cheaper and a lot more competent. You could combine it, though, with a pure catalog tool like PhotoSupreme. Last but not least, the Adobe photography subscription (Lightroom and Photoshop) isn't bad value, but it is a monthly subscription that some people do not like.

I'm not disputing no-one can have objections to Windows 10; I only said personally I do not get them. And I still do not; others may see it differently. All I'm saying is that sticking to an old operating system, for whatever reason, has inevitable consequences. Companies cannot continue to support everything, and Windows 7 is already 9 years old by now; more and more companies will stop supporting Windows 7, not just Adobe.

Windows 7 support is running out; Adobe is basically following Microsoft's lead. Personally I never quite got the objections against Windows 10; I can get you don't like the UI as much but there are options to tweak that look and feel too. In the end, you cannot continue to hold off the upgrade to a newer OS as you'll loose security fixes, support for new(er) technologies and so on. So, personally, I think switching software for this reason is just postponing the inevitable. While I am a content user of CaptureOne and Affinity Photo, and have no Adobe subscription, I think the reason to stick to an outdated and increasingly insecure OS is not a very sound reason to change software, because there is little reason to assume that other software manufacterers will not follow suit as well and start to phase out Win7 support. That all said, I do feel it's worth examining the options outside of Adobe's world - not because Adobe software would be bad, but the alternatives are too often disregarded by default while there is very worthwhile software among them, that would deserve a wider audience. It will improve competition, and that's never a bad thing.

Sanford, strongly depends what you use it for; for slow-moving or static photography, the lower-end AF-modules work perfectly fine. But start using the tracking abilities and low-light AF more, and you'll easily notice the D300 is a pretty serious step up.

Affinity Photo: cheaper than PS Elements, and a lot more competent than CS2 or PSE, and fully supported on modern operating systems. A bit of a learning curve coming from Photoshop, but nothing dramatic.

I guess the only really surprising thing to me on this new D3500 is how the command wheel takes a design clue from the Z6/Z7, sitting on top rather than inside the body above the thumb rest like all DSLRs to date.

A Werra. Small, works well and terrific looks.

Oh darn. Now you have back at looking a Leica M's..... and I already tried battling this with a Leica R (which I do like a lot though) and a couple of other rangefinders. And it just keeps coming back to wanting a Leica M of some sorts. Grrrr.... Agree on the Helios-103; I got one for my Kiev-2 and it's surprisingly good. My sample was maybe a bit more expensive, though. A whopping 25 euros (shipping included) from Ukrain :-)

If you use Nikon's software to process your raw (NEF) files, your camera settings will persist - so if you set the sharpening, white balance etc. in-camera, the software will use the same settings as departure point for your post-processing. This means: if you do no editing, the image will look just like a JPEG out of the camera would have looked. Other software will not do this, and use their own profiles for your camera as a starting point - this means it disregards picture profiles, sharpening, white balance set in camera completely. The Nikon software is free, so it's easy to try for yourself, but many users ultimately move on to other software with more capabilities, such as Lightroom or CaptureOne. And arguably, it's worth investing time from the start in a good, solid, program that will work for you for some time to come (learning to use software does cost time, after all), and frankly, I wouldn't recommend Nikon Capture NX-D as a long-term solution, but as said, it's free so it's always worth the try. As mentioned above, in most cases, using raw is prefered, as it ensures you keep as much data as possible at the time of capture. Other format will cause some loss of information, and once lost, it won't come back. Just to be very clear: a raw file isn't sharpened, has no white balance correction applied or anything: it is, as the name implies, raw data. So those camera settings have no influence on the raw file that is produced (only on the embedded preview you see in camera and in some programs). Whether there is benefit in shooting also JPEG is a personal choice - the amount of work to convert a raw file to JPEG isn't a big effort once you're familiar with the software you're using. Good programs can do batch operations (meaning you can clone your edits from one image to another). So the effort needed to convert a raw to a JPEG or TIFF file shouldn't be exegerated, you can make it as simple or complicated as you like. Again, investing time to learn your software of choice properly is time well spent.

As far as I've understood: - With Z-lenses, the in-body stabilizer works on 5 axis; - With F-lenses on the FTZ-adapter, the in-body stabilizer works on 3 axis, and the VR of the lens can cover the other 2 (so yielding a total system that should be equal or near equal efficient). Personally I am not yet vastly interested in a mirrorless system, though from an ergonomic point of view I get the impression the Z-cameras would fit me/my hands better than the Sony bodies. I like it that Nikon has tried to stay close to the button layout of the DSLRs; it's proven working and eases transition. But the one concern I have at this point is whether there will be adapters for lenses of other systems as well - to me personally, that would be by far the biggest argument in favour of a mirrorless over a DSLR. Just simple manual focus adapters, as they exist plenty for Sony E, Fuji X and m4/3rds, would be fine. Otherwise, I still fail to see why so many people seem to think there can be only one system in the future, and only one winner. DSLRs do not need to go away; sure they may become a niche market, but this constant argument that DSLRs will go away is so short-sighted to me. There is no consumer advantage in having less choice, and so far the market shows that niche products can co-exist and even be profitable enough; you can still buy a rangefinder, medium format and film today and multiple companies active in those niche markets are posting healthy results. So, let's hope we keep choice rather than having to pick one winner, whether we'd like or not.

Technically not a classic manual camera.... and the bit of electronics that are there worked nicely against me, as for a fair number of frames for some reason it has something like 2 stops dialled in, and since the meter is usually quite accurate, I used my brain too little. Maybe simpler is better.... :-) Anyway, the roll of slidefilm didn't like those wildly off exposures; luckily the rest came out just fine. Leica R7, Summicron-R 35mm, Agfa Precisa CT100

A D750 at your budget will probably be hard to find in the short term - the D600 or D610 are more affordable, and easier to find around your budget.

While scanning a roll of slides that just came back, one more from the same series as last week; Canonet QL17, Delta 100 in HC110.

The Tamron 18-270 has a reasonable reputation for what it is, so I doubt if the Nikon 18-200 would actually be a step forward. It is good for a convenience lens, but it's optically challenged (and sorry, but certainly not excellent). So, yeah, split the range in multiple lenses. In the past, I had thr 16-85VR (replaced a 18-70 for me), and found it very good for landscapes. The range is very useful, and in terms of performance, it's certainly a step up from the older 18-70. The one downside of the lens is its slow aperture, which may or may not bug you for portraits. For the longer lenses, I'd first check with your 18-270 how often you use those, and then decide if you need one, and if yes, how much to spend on it - and especially if you need f/2.8 lenses (which drives up size, weight and price). The 70-200 f/4VR or the latest FX 70-300 f/3.5-5.6VR are excellent lenses, and if you don't need the wide apertures, a lot easier on the wallet and shoulder muscles. A lens that I would consider for food photos using a DX body is the relatively inexpensive 40mm f/2.8DX macro.