dpbours

<p>Technically it should be possible, since data pairs in the cable are not cut. The 6 to 4 pin firewire only skips the power and not the data part. Have a look here: http://pinouts.ru/Slots/ieee1394_pinout.shtml<br>

Since the scanner is getting its own power, this should not be a problem.</p><div></div>

<p>I would hope there is an answer for this one, since I shoot in exactly the same way.<br>

I have gotten used to pushing the shutter button lightly. I actually now do it automatically after each shot, but it is a bit of a ridiculous solution if you want to work with the focus points in the next shot... Then again, you need to re-focus anyhow - well, not always, but often.</p>

<p>I don't think there is a way to turn the preview entirely off or to set the muti selector different. But it would surely be nice if there is...</p>

<p>No, no weather sealing what so ever.<br>

Get such a plastic bag cover to put over lens and camera and fixes on the lens hood if it really rains that hard... I had the 24-85 for a short time. In the end I changed it for a Sigma 24-70 2.8. Also limited weather sealing, but much sharper. And the macro option, you'll never use it.</p>

<p>VR I is fine if you're sure you'll stay with a DX camera for quite a little while.<br>

The VR I is not a stellar performer on an FX camera, but it is fine on DX. When you would move towards FX in the coming years, I'd wait for the price of the VR II to go down a bit.</p>

<p>I used a 12-24 for a short while - a very short while. The AF was buggy, it sometimes did not have good contact with the body. And it was extremely soft. Had to go to f/9 to get some decent sharpness. Very soft and light unsensitive</p>

<p>Looking at currently available bodies (in the lower price class), the D60, D3000 and D5000 have no internal focus motor, which you need for the 85mm 1.4. Then the D90 would be the body of choice.<br /> Or perhaps go for a second hand D200. Build like a tank, but not as good with the higher isos as the newer D90.</p>

<p>I have the 14 - 24mm. Limited use, yes. But you will be surprised how often you start using it.<br>

I use the 14-24mm for everything from cityscapes to strange close-ups. I also have the cheaper 18-35mm, which I actually rarely use. It is my travel lens under harsh circumstances.<br>

I also have the 24 - 70 and it is my general purpose lens. Yes, the 24mm is restrictive for landscapes, but I actually use it quite a lot for landscapes - in porttrait mode I shoot to stitch. Works great.</p>

<p>So either the 14-24 and accept the lack of filters and extremeness of the lens. Or the 24-70 and stitch. The 18-35mm is too limited to me.</p>

<p>Having an FX has little to do with the printing size of your photograph as I saw someone saying before.<br>

A full frame sensor is much better at low light, less noise etc etc. You will see the difference in low light situations and shadows. And you can shoot at iso 3200, where the D300s will be much noisier at the same iso rating.<br>

If you do want to make a giant leap from your D1, buy the D700. If you just look for a great camera, want to save a few bucks and you're not shooting under the most demanding circumstances, get the D300s.<br>

I saw someone saying that you need great glass on the D700. The spreading of the pixels over the full frame having an impact on the demand for a certain type of lens is nonsense. The D700 is quite demanding - more demanding than DX, epsecially towards old lenses. Why, because DX does not use the full frame and FX uses the corners of the old lenses, which can look quite soft on the D700.<br>

But old lenses still perform very well, though not stellar. That has to do with the coating, electronics etc etc. A stellar lens in the past (50mm 1.4 / 85mm 1.4 / 105 DC, etc.) is often still a great performer. An average lens back then will produce less than average results on the D700. Then again, I would not want to use an average lens on a D300s either...</p>

<p>I do have the Nikkor 14 - 24 2.8, which is extremely wide. But again, the 14 is only usable for overviews from a distance, since you will get a clear fisheye effect. If you take a group shot at 14mm it will not be pretty. <br>

If you want to go for extremely wide - overview of entire church, this is the lens. But I would not use it for group shots to be honest.<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/361-nikkor-af-s-14-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review</p>

<p>I also have the Sigma 24 - 70 2.8.<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/474-sigma_ex_2470_28_hsm_fx<br>

That is a great lens, since it has a very nice range going from group shots to portraits. And I have to say I'm very happy with the quality. The price difference with the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 made me choose the Sigma and I'm happy I did. Got mine second hand for 250 euros.</p>

<p>If you shoot these group shots and overviews in confined spaces, perhaps the Nikkor 17- 35 2.8.<br>

Seems to be a fine lens from what I read of other users. For me, there is too much overlap with my other 2.8 lenses, so I got the 18-35 version 3.5 - 4.5. If you would consider buying the 17-35 2.8, perhaps get a second hand 18-35 mm f/3.5 - 4.5 first to see if the range works for you.</p>

<p>For me, the Sigma 24 - 70 and the Nikkor 14 - 24 is a great combination. Be aware that the Nikkor 14 - 24 is only usable at 20 - 24 for group shots. When you go wider, you get too much fisheye effect for a clean group shot. BUT, you will get great overviews at 14mm. Wonderful sharpness!!</p><div></div>

<p>I sometimes use the adjustments in my D700, but when shooting with the a1 - a2 ... b1 - b2 fine tuning towards blue and red. I push the WB button and then scroll the front wheel. In some circumstances it's an interesting fine tuning.</p>

<p>Next to that, any other fine tuning is done in RAW, since I shoot RAW + JPEG.</p>

<p>The colours are okay and it's hard to say something about the sharpness without a 100% crop. But it is a good lens for the money. I use the Sigma 70 - 200 2.8 myself, which I find to be a sharper lens, but at f/2.8 that is not really surprising.</p>

<p>I have my share of expensive Nikon lenses, but the Sigma 70-200 is in my bag as well. I did not want to spend the insane amount on the VR II. The VR I has some issues on FX bodies. So for me the non-VR lenses were the best choice.<br>

The Nikon 80-200 is overpriced for what it delivers. The Sigma 70-200 is a fine lense.Light sensitive, built like a tank and focus is spot-on. No hunting going on. I think if it works fine on a D700 it will surely work fine on a D300.<br>

I got my Sigma 70-200 second hand for 450 euros.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yep, I'm pro filter - though not that much in contact with baby pee, snot or spit-up. Had my share of mud on the lense though and at those times I was happy I had my protective filter.</p>

<p>Mostly cap. Lens hood on in reverse to keep it snuggly in my Billingham. Mostly left in the bag when using the camera. Depends on the circumstances.<br>

I appreciate a bit of closeness to what I shoot and a lens hood that is bigger than the lens itself often scares people a bit.I rarely use the hood of the lenses I use most (Sigma 24-70, Nikon 18-35, Nikon 50mm and the 14-24 doesn't have a lense hood, fortunately.<br>

Some lenses are more flare-sensitive than others. With those (80-400mm / 70-200mm) I always try to use the hood, or the sun should be in my back.</p>

<p>Steve Huff tested the D3s.<br>

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/12/the-nikon-d3s-review/<br>

Strangely enough, this Leica photographer feels the D3s is a bit heavy ... ;-)</p>

 

<p>Haha, I love this kind of DIY work. Very inspirational!!</p>

<p>As far as I understand, hot pixels are not a sensor issue in the sense that your sensor is having a problem.<br>

It is actually a normal phenomenon having to do with the way the sensor communicates with the camera, being analog signals and the hot pixel being a charge leakage of a pixel compared to the neighbouring pixels. Next to that, higher temperatures make for more charge leakage and as such more chances of hot pixels.<br>

In my case, the hot pixel was there on the jpeg, but it was not there in the raw data being the RAW file. I shoot jpeg + RAW. The camera does all the in-camera hocus pocus on the jpeg file, but the RAW does not get any in-camera adjustments.<br>

A hot pixel is only at slow shutter speeds in dark environments. If it is there always, it is a stuck pixel, which is something completely different ;-).</p>

<p>Your question is whether to send in your camera. Yes.<br>

It is within warranty and it is a very quick fix. They basically reset the sensor and memory of your camera. I got my camera back in a week.And often they give the sensor a clean as well. So yes, send it in if it is in warranty.</p>

 

<p>I would sell the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and get te 50mm f/1.4. Get the older version second hand. It is as sharp as the new version and I hear it focusses quicker than the IF version... I'm very happy with the 50mm f/1.4. Sharpness is really great. <br>

Don't go for the 85mm 1.8 - If you feel the 50mm 1.8 is unsharp for you, you will surely have the same feeling with the 85mm.</p>

<p>D90, for the in-body AF motor for the older lenses (half of my lenses are not internally focussed) and the better viewfinder. The strobe use of the D90 is nice, but chances are you'll never use it...</p>

<p>Here you find more info on capacitor dischargning:<br>

http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/captest.htm</p>

<p>Though there is little you can do inside of the SB-600. I got mine apart, but most of the components are SMD, so there is little to test to see what is wrong.</p>

<p>The only upgrade at the moment for you would be to go full frame to the D700. It makes a world of difference. I made the step and I'm not missing the D200, especially in low light circumstances.<br>

But the D200 was great. I did lend a D300 every now and then and differences are not that big to justify that step for me...</p>

<p>Well, the traffic will become less and less, since it's not possible anymore to ad Ken Rockwell links to your forum threads. Not that it will impact his bank account in any way though!</p>

<p>I would like to create a Media RSS in order to produce slideshows of photos I have on photo.net.<br>

These slideshows would run on my own website, but use the photos I uploaded here. How would I be able to do that?!</p>

<p>I know it is possible from Photobucket, Flickr, Facebook etc, but I don't want to be uploading my work twice - once to Photo.net for the valuable comments and once to another website to be able to create a slideshow.</p>

<p>Any tips?</p>

<p>In my case it degraded all images in portrait format. The ones in landscape were untouched. Very strange. Guess it has to do with downsampling to fit the cooliris wall....</p>

<p>It actually in this case made good images bad and you had to be blind not to see the difference in quality between landscape and portrait layout shots, wrt quality.</p>

<p>I got more shots in a slideshow, but I would love to customize the number of rows in cooliris...</p>

<p>He didn't review the D3S yet, only D3 and D3X.</p>