bebu_lamar

<p>I totally agree with you Mike! I see no reason to buy a new flash. As for the behavior I think that's the way new Nikon DSLR behaves with flash of that vintage. I don't have the D800 nor the SB26 but my Df doesn't recognize any of my Nikon compatible flashes including SB-15, SB-16b , Metz 60CT4 with compatible module and a Sunpak PZ5000AF for Nikon. The film F5 recognized them but not the Df. <br> And sure I see a parallel. If the equipment you're using is working fine there is no need to upgrade. I do understand your question to find out how the flash would work with your camera and didn't say that it doesn't work satisfactory. <br> Except for fill flash since I have the Df I need a lot less of power from the flash than from the film days. Still need the same amount of power for fill flash as the flash has to be almost as powerful as the sunlight. </p>

<p>The processing is also harder to get. But sure if you can tell us what kind of set up you use for 35mm film then we can recommend digital replacement. </p>

<p>Bought a Nikon DSLR recently and knowing it was made in the Sendai plant which is near the accident but I wouldn't buy the one that is made in Thailand. I rather take the radiation.</p>

<p>If you buy the 7200 to replace the 7100 it's not upgrading. It's updating. </p>

<p>The mod probably will delete my post but let me tell you. If the girl is my kid and I am reading your posts here I don't want my kid to deal with you at all. I feel you want the kids to do too much for you for what you gave them is very little. </p>

<p>I am like Dan I never have storage problem. I never run out a card and I have no problem carrying spare card so I have zero interest in saving space. That's said, still you don't want to use storage space that you don't need but I found that I need the JPEG to give them to my wife very soon after the shot was taken and I have no time nor a chance to do anything with the RAW file. </p>

<p>Now someone here will say that I have no data but I think today B&W is more popular among flm user so it's one more reason to expect B&W to stay on longer. <br> I am very sad as I don't shoot B&W (I just don't have the eye for it) and It seems color film will go.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Nikon could make a digital camera with the size and usefulness of FE. It cold have the following features:</p> <ul> <li>With a mirror, so that the user can compose through optical viewfinder. No power-hungry-slow-weird-color-expensive EVF, thank you very much.</li> <li>Without any screen on the back or top - they take space and drain a lot of power. I would review my images on the computer anyway.</li> <li>Without AF motor, to save space. Or with it, I don't mind as long as it is cheap.</li> <li>With small buffer, to reduce the price.</li> <li>With dials on top for speed, aperture, and ISO.</li> <li>With slow, low-power <a id="itxthook2" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cdgU?start=50" rel="nofollow">processor<img id="itxthook2icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> to save price and increase battery life.</li> <li>With the cheapest and slowest AF module, 11 AF points are more than enough.</li> <li>Without video, thank you for this.</li> <li>With spot metering, so the user can decide what the exposure should be.</li> <li>With the cheapest contemporary 10MP+ sensor.</li> <li>And so on - anything reducing weight, price, and power consumption.</li> </ul> </blockquote> <p>How much do you expect to pay for such a camera? Although you think such a camera have a very limited set of features and lousy performance yet I don't think Nikon can make a profit selling it for less than $2000. So if the consumer like you won't pay the price Nikon won't make it. </p>

<p>A demo should have full warranty. I bought my 20mm f/2.8 AF-D as a demo. It was in like new condition but I knew it was in the store for a few years really. I came and saw the same lens several times myself. However, I had a problem with the aperture not stopping down later on and Nikon fixed it for me under the 5 years warranty no question asked. </p>

<blockquote> <p>What Nikon did "right" was keeping the FM3a in production for a relatively short period of time, about 5 years from 2001 to 2006. </p> </blockquote> <p>It is the reason for the high price of the FM3a on the used market but not something Nikon did right because I don't think they made a lot of money. A lot of money went to people who bought the camera new and resell for higher price. </p>

<blockquote> <p> So a mirrorless Df wouldn't shock me at all. In fact, I thoroughly expected the first version of the Df to be a mirrorless EVF dSLR-type body.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is the kind of comment that made me post the question. It seems that if the Df was a mirroless it is more welcomed than it is not. </p>

<p>Do you think Nikon should introduce a FF high end, not necessary top of the line but in the D800 class, mirrorless camera? I ask because it seems that many expect the Df to be a mirrorless and now some are wishing the D5 is a mirrorless.</p>

<p>You could but I strongly recommend not to do so. You can find a similar deal for the Nikon lens. </p>

<p>from 0.85 to 1.4 is 0.4689 stop. </p>

<p>The bellow gives about 200mm of extension and it's not sufficient to bring the magnification to 4:1 with the 105mm lens. May be 2:1 but I have to check.</p>

<p>The power of the flash is both duration and intensity. They are different from flash to flash.</p>

<p>Densitometer should be calibrated at least daily and also control strip should be run daily also.</p>

<p>Return. Get another one if you still like the ME. It's cheap.</p>

<p>Michael, the article in the link I think was wrong as the D90 was the first Nikon DSLR to shoot video but Nikon wasn't first. I think Canon was first and I think Nikon was late and behind others in the video area. </p>

<p>I can shoot in very low light at smaller aperture and cheaper lens with my Nikon Df than an APC-C camera with an f/0.8 lens. For a lot of money one can only gain a stop or two in aperture but for not so much money one can get several stops in higher ISO. High ISO is for low light. Fast lenses are for those who hate DOF and love them blurry bokeh. </p>

<p>Fast lenses are for those who want no DOF not for shooting in the dark.</p>

<p>Generally I would only make the scan to provide the print of the same size of the original or smaller and thus 300dpi is sufficient. </p>

<p>A 500W or so inverter should be sufficient for just about any inkjet printer. I imangine you could carry a large format printer in your truck.</p>

<p>That's true but I for one is not a typical consumer. I would use the camera until it breaks or rather when I can't get battery for them. I can stock pile memory card but not battery.</p>

<blockquote> <p>This is relative. An F3 in good condition is about $200 from a <a id="itxthook2" href="/modern-film-cameras-forum/00cc9F" rel="nofollow">reliable<img id="itxthook2icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> vendor and an F5 about $400. When film shooting was still big those were worth well over $1000. Now that demand for film gear is much lower, nobody's bothering with cheaper stuff and a larger percentage of film camera buyers than before are buying high end film cameras. That's why flagship models are still sellable.</p> </blockquote> <p>In the late 90's the F3 was about $1000 but when I bought my F3HP in 1983 it was only $460. I paid $2000 for my F5 in 2002 and now I am lucky to get $500 for it although it's in like new condition and has seen very little use.</p>