bebu_lamar

<p>You certainly need new lenses as all the lenses you mentioned are DX lens and I wouldn't use DX lens on the Df. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Started with D90, then D90s, then F5, then F100.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> If you started with the D90 then you couldn't start any earlier than 2008 which is far from 20 years ago. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Twenty years ago I was really into wildlife photography with F100 & 500mm f4</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> <br> I am sorry but the oldest F100 is only 15 years old. </p>

<p>Keith, <br> I have a copy too.<br> My personal opinion is that it's better than silver fast.</p>

<p>+1<br> While 18 is quite wider than 24 but with an FX camera 24 is quite wide. The coverage from 35 to 85 is very useful. </p>

If I ever use a grip it's for the extra fps or extra battery life. I found the grip is bad for holding the camera.

<blockquote> <p> Usually when we (or at least I) talk about mirrorless, we are talking about mirrorless with <strong>interchangeable</strong> lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yup!<br> I don't want to get flamed but really when people said mirrorless they don't simply mean a camera without mirror. We had camera without mirror for a hundred years already. When they said mirrorless they meant that it is a digital camera, interchangable lens, capable of a viewing system that view thru the lens and yet there is no reflex mirror. So something like the Leica M9 isn't really mirrorless. The M-240 is because it offers a way to view thru the lens. </p>

<p>There are both the 180mm f/2.8 version and the 200mm f/4 micro version but no 200mm f/4 which is a regular telephoto lens and very inexpensive. The 200mm f/4 micro is even more expensive than the 180mm f/2.8 which is a whole stop faster. I paid less than $200 for the 200 f/4 AI in the early 80's. Today a newer version should cost around $400 only not any where near the price of the 180mm or the 200mm micro.</p>

<p>No not me! I wouldn't have to spend any money as there is nothing interesting. </p>

<p>It would be difficult to make it the same size. It would have to be thicker than the FM.</p>

<p>No</p>

<p>Once again I wish to thank Shun for replying to my inquiry. It's something I want to know. Why do I want to know I shall not say. I thank Shun for not asking why I asked and just gave me the answer. If I won't get an answer because not disclose the reason for the question then I can find out the answer for myself. It takes some leg work but not too difficult. <br> The thread went on quite long with discussion on whether made in Japan is better than made in Thailand. I don't want to participate in such a debate. <br> Thank you all. </p>

<p>Thank you Shun for confirming what I thought. Sorry Nick, I do not wish to enlighten you.</p>

<p>Did Nikon make the D800 and D800e in Japan and now move the production of the D810 to Thailand?</p>

<p>If Nikon were to stripped the Df down to the M60 level it would cost about $6000 my guess. </p>

<p>Tripped down and affordable although makes sense but in reality they never go together. The M 60 is a good case and even the Df isn't that much stripped down and isn't that affordable. </p>

<p>The M Edition 60 commemorates 60 years of the M series. When the M series was introduced the Japanese camera makers like Nikon decided that they can't compete with Leica so they made the SLR. 60 years later Leica gave up making the SLR. Oh they still make the S2 don't they?</p>

<p>ISO 1600 should be fine assuming the the D4 is about the same as the Df that I have. I can see grain with Ektar 100 but not noise at ISO 1600 with my Df. So how could you shoot film? You would need an 8x10 I guess. </p>

<p>Anyone knows the dimesnion of the M 60 vs say and M7 or MP? I bet even without the LCD it's significantly thicker (lens mount to back) than the film counterpart. The M9 and M 240 are way thicker than the M7 or MP. Leica could throw in the advance level just for cocking the shutter and yeah the shutter can be mechanical. </p>

<p>I did shot a roll of Kodachrome 200 in 2002 when I bought my Nikon F5 just to check it out. </p>

<p>I don't know either but I sure don't want to be one.</p>

<p>Keep the lenses and sell the film bodies on Ebay.</p>

<p>Prime lenses have zoom factor of 1 so they must be the best! Well generally they are better than zoom but that is not the rule. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The point is, why are you using a 36MP body? Why would you use lenses and technique that cannot take full advantage of 36MP?</p> </blockquote> <p>I myself do not intend to buy those expensive lenses nor those greatest and latest lenses so with that you would advice not to buy the D800 (D810)? I didn't buy a D800 but I thought the extra MP would not hurt. </p>

<p>Your Sekonic meter actually has better specs than your Nikon camera although not much in spot mode only 1EV. However the meter quit trying to give you a reading that may not be accurate while the Nikon would give you a reading but the LCD flashes warning you that the light level is out of range. </p>