bebu_lamar

<p>I do not like the popup flash on any camera as well as the focus assist light. I do like the idea of the old days with add on motor drive but I do not like the idea of add on battery pack/grip. I rather the have the camera with or without the battery pack/grip permanently.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Now we've just got used to having to pay silly money for a proprietary plug on the end of a simple bit of wire and a switch, and have most likely thrown away our old mechanical Bowden cables.</p> </blockquote> <p>May be you should hang on to unused stuff for a bit longer. I still have the like new AR-3 I bought for the F3 in 1982. </p>

<p>The Nikon unit does look kind of nice but I feel no need as the shutter release feel fine for me. In fact much better than one on standard DSLR.</p>

<p>I think for a portrait that looks natural the camera should be at the same distance from the subject as you normally looking at the subject. There are people that you tend to look at them at much closer distance than other so take picture of them at that distance. The focal length of the lens is then be chosen for the framing/composition. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I realise we may be rehashing old ground, but out of interest - and without getting too much into another one of my threads about the Df's handling - would you mind clarifying what you don't like about the D800 body, BeBu? </p> </blockquote> <p>Agree and I think I should start another thread or something. As for the D300 and D200 before it did look good to me but I rejected simply because it's DX. I never consider a DX camera even before Nikon made an FX camera. </p>

<p>No not at all! But if Nikon didn't make the Df I might have to break down and get the D4. I don't like the D800 body at all. </p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the responds. Now I know what the D400 is like. It's like a smaller version of the top of the line. Should have decent build quality although not matching the top of the line. Should have good frame rate and large buffer close to but not match the top of the line. Should have similar pixels count and image quality of the top of the line but a bit not as good in high ISO range. And for that I must admit there is none at the moment.</p> <blockquote> <p>When the D300 and D700 were launched I don't think there were many people saying they weren't good enough</p> </blockquote> <p>Actually I thought they are not good enough. At the time only the D3 was good enough for me but I didn't have the money for it. </p> <blockquote> <p>In fact, the Df in a D800 body could have been what you are asking for as a successor of the D700, but they had to put this into that "pure photography" body to avoid any damage to the D4 sales.</p> </blockquote> <p>I bought the Df because it's not the D4 sensor in the D800 body. </p>

<p>Using flash in bright light still require a lot of flash power in fact a sometimes more as you would need to use low ISO to match the bright sun.</p>

<p>I feel there is a problem with DX mainly the flange distance. The flange distance was chosen for the 35mm film which is now the FX format. It's too long for the DX format. The DX camera doesn't need that much room for the mirror. A long flange distance means the normal lens for the DX format has to be a retrofocus designed which would make it more expensive than the normal lens for the FX format. Wide angle would be more expensive too. Nikon don't have that many DX lenses and using FX lenses on a DX body is a waste. The extra coverage isn't free, it either cost more to make or compromise overall quality to achieve larger image circle. </p>

<p>Yeah but what's in the dream that's what I am curious about.</p>

<p>It seems that the D7100 lacks only a larger and robust body isn't that right? The D7100 does have AF motor in body and AI coupling right?</p>

<p>I read many posts complaining that Nikon didn't make the D400. Well as far as Nikon introducing a camera with the model name D400 I don't think that is going to happen simply because Nikon has changed the way they name their cameras. Now may I ask what kind of features do you expect in the new camera to be the D400. As I have seen many didn't think the D7000, 7100 is the D400.</p>

<p>If I were in the market for the D800 or D800E I would spend the extra money and get the D810. Although the improvement is small the extra $500 which is less than 20% is small too I think. </p>

<p>Since you have a 5DMkIII I don't think you have very tight budget so I would recommend to get a nice Canon EOS 35mm camera to start using film. I take it that you have no experience with film so starting with a camera that has familiar controls with your current camera is a good thing. You can explore further with older camera once you know what film photography is all about. I think the EOS-2 or any of the EOS-1 would be a good one to get. <br> The Yashica Electro 35 requires battery to work at all. The Canonet (It's not electro I don't think so) doesn't require battery to work in manual mode but the battery is needed for the meter as well as to operate in Tv mode. </p>

<p>If the camera were to be used for video it should be built in form that makes it easy to do video not still.</p>

<p>Although I always use a PC and I have been using a PC for more than 20 years I would get lost using a Mac. So I recommend you to get another Mac as the learning curve is kinda stiff. </p>

<p>All of them except the phone app. Of course not all at the same time. <br> If the camera has a good meter I generally would use it. Camera with meter that requires mercury cell I would not use it. <br> I do use handheld meter but either in spot or incident and never average. No phone app as I don't even have a smart phone.<br> I use my knowledge when the camera doesn't have a meter or requires mercury battery for the meter or inaccurate meter. Yes I do check all my camera meter against the meters I trust. <br> Almost never average as most camera built in meter are center weighted or spot or matrix. <br> Of course I don't do things the same way for every shot.</p>

<p>I always thought that Canon did the right thing in abandonning the FD mount. It's a move that moved them ahead of Nikon. I guess at the time Canon didn't have too big of a stake to lose but Nikon did so they couldn't do it the Canon way from the beginning but having to do it a little bit at a time. </p>

<p>Very few lenses have the electronic diaphragm in Nikon line up. </p>

<p>Very few lenses have the electronic diaphragm in Nikon line up. </p>

<p>I need high ISO because for many situations I just simply love the way the lights on the subject. When I shot film which I only use ISO100 or 160 I had to use very elaborate lighting equipment to imitate that light but at higher level. This high ISO capability is the most important benefit for going digital instead of film. </p>

<p>If you ever watch detective movies and saw them detectives taking pictures in low light, long lens and hand held then even the highest H4 would not be fast enough. </p>

<p>Possible that the 50mm is at fault as it has to stop the lens down and if it doesn't stop down as much as it should. The zoom is at wide open so even if it's defective it shouldn't cause the problem. </p>

<p>If you use Alkaline C cells vs the alkaline AA cells what you would get it about 3 times the number of shots and about same recycling time. There is not danger. The mAH rating for the C are about 3 times as the AA. The internal resistance are the same. <br> But if you compare NiMH then the story is different as most C size NiMH are actually AA cells in a larger cell and thus there is no gain. You can possibly get true C cell NiMH but they are usually available in sub C size. I didn't check the internal resistance which affect the recycling time and heating problem. </p>

<blockquote> <p>These people were baby boomers who had a SLR in the 60's and 70's and wanted to upgrade to the latest equipment. They were pretty adamant about buying a DSLR kit.</p> </blockquote> <p>Depend on what they had in those period it may not be an upgrade but rather an adaptation to the time. </p>