joe_petrik

Put me down as a happy Df user. When the camera was announced in the fall of 2013 I thought, finally, Nikon has made the camera I've been waiting for. I bought a black version when it became available and I've been thrilled with it since.

With a few chipped Voigtlander primes — the 20mm f/3.5, 28mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2 — and a 105mm f/2.5 or 105mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor or 75-150mm f/3.5 e-series zoom (of which I select one lens based on expected use) I have a wonderful smallish, light-weight full-frame DSLR.

That it looks like a camera should is, of course, an added bonus.

I'd be very interested in a DF II, but I strongly suspect the DF was a one-off.

Joe

P.S. It's a great camera for catography, though admittedly I used one of them thar new Nikons on it — Curious cat

Thanks, Peter and Walter.

FYI: The 15mm is in mint condition and is selling for a little less than what the 12-24mm f/4

Nikkor sells for.

Joe

I've long wanted to have an ultra-ultrawide angle lens, even more so now given that Nikon's D-SLRs have

16x24mm sensors that make wideangle photography somewhat elusive. I've contemplated getting a

15mm f/3.5 for years but have held off because the price has been too high.

I came across one in mint shape at an attractive price and I'm tempted to get it, but I thought I'd ask here

first to see how the lens performs on a Nikon D-SLR. I have a D2H, but I may get a D200 or Fuji S5 in a

while, so I'm particularly curious how the 15mm works on those bodies. For what it's worth, I tried

searching Bjørn's site but he reviews only the older 15mm f/5.6.

Thanks,

Joe

Nico -- Thanks for the link. I'm not sure if Thom's advice applies to the D2H, but it does

make sense to get everything as close as possible to correct in the field. FYI: I take your

point

about Jelena's skin, but she's young and has a flawless complexion. Her skin is damn

near perfect.

Peter -- Yeah, fiddling is pretty much what I do. Granted, I do try to get whites to appear

as white, but mostly I just slide the WB and tone sliders until the colours either look right

or aesthetically pleasing to me. (And sometimes I just give up and go back to shooting

slides.)

Joe

Thanks for the comments and replies. For the most part I think I've figured out what to do

with raw files to get them to look the way I want. I was just trying to determine whether

the camera's settings had any bearing on the final image if post-processing is done with

Photoshop CS. (I've never used Nikon's dedicated software.)

<br><br/>

I'm curious what Photonetters think of my after-the-fact fiddling in ACR. I like the result,

but the colours are a bit off. (Her jacket is less green than it appears, but correcting that

gave terrible flesh tones, so I went for more realistic skin and let the other colours fall

where they may.)

<br><br/>

<br>Best,<br/>

Joe

<br><br/>

<a href=" title="Photo

Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/35/101341226_9ec293e7ee_o.jpg"

width="600" height="413" alt="Jelena" /></a>

Thanks, Garry.

At least I know I'm not losing my vision -- or perhaps my mind.

Best,

Joe

A quick question for the digital cognoscenti -- If you shoot raw files and process them in Photoshop CS,

does it make any difference what image settings you select on the camera? In other words, are sharpening,

tone compensation, contrast, white balance, et al. settings ignored by Photoshop?

I've fiddled a bit with these settings on my D2H and unless I'm missing something they don't appear to

make any difference when opening raw files. JPEGs and TIFFs, yes, but not raw files.

Thanks,

Joe

Tom,

The F3's frame counter has to be at 1 before the shutter speed dial lets you choose a speed

other than 1/80th.

Joe

I've been shooting film for years, but early last year I bought a D2H when Nikon was

blowing out old stock to make room for its successor. The addition of digital to film

photography -- note: not conversion *to* digital -- has been great fun, so I'm thinking

about getting a high-res D-SLR, so that I'm less limited by the D2H's 4MP resolution.

One thing is putting me off, though. With the D2H I've found that, with few exceptions,

almost every lens I have that's sharp, contrasty and evenly illuminated on a film camera is

equally sharp, contrasty and evenly illuminated on the D2H. But this doesn't appear to be

true of glass mounted on the higher-res D200 (or D2X). It seems you can't assume that

your gem of a film lens will also be a gem of digital lens because the tightly packed pixels

of cameras such as the D200 and D2X put demands on glass that silver halide does not.

So, I'm curious... among the olde-tyme Nikon photographers -- a bearded and bespeckled

lot most likely with a sack full of old manual-focus Nikkor primes -- which lenses have

you found to work particularly well on a D200?

For what it's worth, the lenses I use the most are the 18mm f/3.5, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/

1.4, new pancake 45mm f/2.8, 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, 55mm f/1.2, 105mm f/2 DC,

200mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor and 300mm f/4.5 IF-ED, all of which are AIS lenses except for

the 105 (AF) and the 55 (non-AI converted to AI).

Thanks,

Joe

I apologize if this has been posted before, but I just found out that there's updated

scanning

software (DiMAGE Scan Software Ver. 1.1.6) available for the original Scan Elite 5400.

Apparently, this is a bug fix and it's available for Mac only, but I thought I pass it on in

case

anyone was interested or in need of a fix.

http://kmpi.konicaminolta.us/eprise/main/kmpi/content/cam/cam_product_pages/

DiMAGE_Scan_Elite_5400?mDetail=Software

If the direct link doesn't work, try

http://kmpi.konicaminolta.us/eprise/main/kmpi/content/cam/cam_Product_Pages/

DiMAGE_Scan_Elite_5400

and click on the software link

Best,

Joe

Thanks for the replies.

I forgot to mention that I have a gift certificate* from B&H that I'd like to put toward the purchase, but unless they happen to have a used HP 7960 in stock I'll be buying a current model.

What I'm unsure about is what replaced the 7960.

Best,

Joe

* To further complicate maters, I'm leaving the U.S. to return to Canada in about two weeks, so I'd like to buy while I'm here to avoid international shipping hassles.

My apologies if this question has been posted once too often...

I have a Canon i9100 inkjet printer. With colour pix I really I don't

have a complaint. Its colour output is as delicate or as saturated as

I want it to be. But I'm less impressed with the i9100's B&W output.

It's next to impossible to get a smoothly toned B&W print or one

without some colour cast.

Does anyone know of a good, inexpensive inkjet for B&W photo printing?

I understand that the Epson R2400 is very good with B&W, but it's more

than I wish to spend. Besides, only about 10% of my prints are B&W, so

I'm looking for a good but cheap printer to take care of monochrome

output. Letter-sized output would be plently big enough.

I did search and a few H-P inkjets came highly recommended, but it

seems that the sought-after models mentioned have been discontinued.

Are there any current models that are particularly good at B&W photo

printing?

Best,

Joe

Thanks, Shun. You just saved me $55.

Best,

Joe

Thanks for the replies, but now I'm wondering whether I need either the SC-28 or SC-29 cord.

I have an SC-17, which I've used for years with an SB-25 and F4, but I assumed that this older cord wasn't fully compatible with a D2H and SB-800. But it appears that it is compatible, going by Bill Harris's answer.

Does anyone know what the difference is, if any, between an SC-17 and an SC-28? If the difference has no bearing on flash-camera function and compatibility, I'd rather not spend $55 for a new cord.

Thanks,

Joe

I have a nerdy question for the Nikon cognoscenti...

I have a D2H and plan to buy an SB-800 flash, SC-28/9 flash cord, and

Stroboframe Quick Flip 350 bracket.

I understand that the AF illuminator in the SC-29 is useful if you use

a flash off-axis. But as long I keep the flash in-line with the lens,

the way it tends to be when using a flash bracket, is there any

advantage in using an SC-29 cord over an SC-28? In other words, are

the two flash cords identical (full i-TTL control, full flash head

zoom control, etc.) except for the SC-29's having an AF illuminator

and the SC-28's not having one?

Joe

Thanks to all for the advice and assistance. As it turns out the F100 is defective. I returned it to KEH and their technician confirmed what I suspected -- that the flash's TTL metering isn't working right. Bit of a pain in the arse getting a broken camera, but KEH, to their credit, is being more than accommodating to help sort the problem out.

Joe

Dave: >>I?d send the F100 back and get a Nikon F5 anyway.<<

I had considered getting an F5 for its fancy shmancy meter, but its weight put me off. And I already have an F4 -- not the bigger F4s -- and it's already bordering on too heavy to carry for a day. That's why I went for an F100... what I had hoped would be the best compromise.

Manh Le: >>When in aperture priority mode and constant ambient light, the body will always produces the same amount of flash regardless of the aperture settings. This is the correct behavior.<<

Are you sure? My F4 doesn't work that way with flash. If I set the aperture to, say, f/2 the flash lets out a peep. If I set the aperture to f/16 it let's out a roar.

Joseph: >> do you have a F100 manual? >>

I don't and agree one would be useful, but it seems the problem is with the F100. I phoned KEH this morning and they suggested I return the camera, so I'm taking that as a sign that the problem isn't operator error.

Best,

Joe

I did a bit of testing with a handheld Minolta Auto Meter V and I'm now fairly certain the F100 is defective. Settings were as follows:

1) The camera and flash were set to ISO 100, the same ISO as the slide film in camera.

2) The camera was set to aperture priority and f-stops were selected using the aperture ring on the lens (custom function 22 was set to allow use of the ring).

3) I used no unusual settings on the flash or camera -- for example, rear-curtain synch, multiple flash, exposure compensation, etc. were not enabled.

4) I tried the flash both straight on and bounced off a whitish ceiling.

5) I picked apertures that were within the flash's range (f/2 to f/5.6), so it's not that I had underexposed the film because I had picked too small an aperture.

Here's the telling result: No matter what aperture I picked, the Minolta meter gave the **same** flash reading. In other words, different apertures, from f/2 to f/16, made no difference to the amount of light coming from the flash. So unless I'm missing something, it seems the F100 is defective. Do you agree?

Best,

Joe

Thanks, Joe.

>>Make sure your exposure compensation is set to zero on the camera.<<

I'm pretty sure I have the camera set to zero, but how would I know?

>>Make sure that the ISO on the camera and flash both read the same correct ISO.<<

Not a problem there. Both the camera and flash read as 100 ISO and that's what I've

loaded.

>>What mode had you been using on the camera for flash? P or A or S or M? <<

Always set to A. I set the aperture and let the camera do the rest.

>>What lens was on the camera? AIS or AF or AF-D?<<

Both lenses I used are AF-Ds -- the 24-85 f/2.8-4 and the 105 f/2 AF-DC.

I'm pretty sure I'm doing everything right. Does it sound like I've missed something?

Best,

Joe

I bought a secondhand F100 a month ago and the camera seems to be working

flawlessly except for one thing -- every TTL flash picture has come out about

3 stops underexposed. The same flash, an SB-25, works fine on my F4, so my guess is

that the flash is fine and it's the F100's flash control that's defective.

But the other thing that occurred to me is that I may have inadvertently turned on one of

the custom settings on the F100, causing it to underexpose pictures taken by flash, but

only flash. Pictures under ambient lighting (inside or outside) using the camera's built-in

meter are properly exposed. For what it's worth, I double-checked the flash settings and it

does *not* have any exposure compensation activated, so that's not the problem.

I bought the camera used from KEH and I don't have a manual, so any suggestions or

advice would be welcome. If the F100 is defective I would like to return it before the 60-

day warranty runs out. But if it's just a case of user error, it's best I sort it out before I

embarrass myself by returning a working camera.

Best,

Joe

Ilkka,

Every Micro-Nikkor I've tried has had very good to excellent sharpness and contrast, but the 105 DC is easily one of Nikon's best lenses. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if it were even better than a 105 macro.

Take a look at the attached pic taken with the 105 DC. That's me reflected in the eyes of the subject.

Joe<div></div>

Carl,

>>Sorry Joe, but I don't see any effect from the DC feature in you pics. In fact they all look like there were shot stopped down with DC not used.<<

Good eye. I didn't use any DC and I did stop down a few clicks, to f/4 or maybe f/5.6.

But Wayne didn't ask for pictures shot wide open or with DC, just pictures taken with the 105, which is what I posted.

Joe