peter_gaunt

<p>I just wish my Android phone had a USB port which would mount my D7000 as a drive. That way, I wouldn't have to carry a laptop around, and I don't have one, to upload a pic from the camera. Sadly, the phone doesn't implement the right USB mode although I'm vaguely hoping that the wiring's all there and it's just awaiting a bit of software. Sigh.</p>

<p>Like the OP I'd rather like a simple, cheaper DSLR with more or less the same features as my old Practika LTL3 or my later Olmpus OM10. One of the things about film cameras was that the image quality was ultimately only dependent on the film, lens and user. A cheap body could take as good a pic as an expensive one.</p>

<p>I have a D7000 at the mo and, until recently, a D80. I've been happy with them other than their ease of use in enitrely manual mode + metering. How I'd love a twinkly thing and a split image circle in the viewfinder in place of that green dot. That alone, I think, would enable me to use my D7000 purely manually in a way which is as easy as my older film cameras. Couple that with a simulation of match needle metering and I'd be in manual heaven.</p>

<div></div>

<p>There's also Kingsley at the Warren Street end of Tottenham Court Road. It's been there for seemingly ever. They will sell stuff on commission or buy it off you outright.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>If you're on a rather low budget, as I am, the Huey Pro is not to be sniffed at. Getting one solved my screen/print colour problems to my satisfaction. It also means that my two screens show very similar colours. What it didn't solve was brightness but that's much more easily accounted for by a bit of experimentation, e.g. from Aperture I print with the print dialogue brightness set to 1.24 and things are fine.</p>

<p>They're almost identical in weight: according to Nikon's site the f2 is 205g, the f1.8 200g.</p>

<p>Other way round, I'd have thought Tim. On a DX a 35mm lens is equivalent to a full frame 52mm: pretty much what's usually seen as a standard lens. On a full frame camera a 35mm is a mild wide angle: useful but kind of stuck in no-man's land.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Thank heavens for that. I thought I might be losing my marbles.</p>

<p>What a strange unit. A watt is a joule per second so my guess is that a watt second is a joule, so why not just say so?</p>

<div></div>

<p>Maerk doesn't indicate why he thinks the 10 stop filter is what he thinks. It may be a x10 which is more like three and a bit stops.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Others have pointed out that you seem to only need the T-mount to be in business. All a T-mount does is provide your camera with a 42mm diameter screw thread to attach other stuff. The thread on the end of the adaptor you have is designed to fit that thread.</p>

<p>One thing I would suggest is to try a number of photo-eyepieces of different magnifications. I tried a x2 and a x2.5 with my D80. With the x2 more or less the whole circular field from the microscope is visible in the D80. With the x2.5 there are still cut off corners. I currently have a x3.2 on order which will, fingers crossed, fit the sensor rectangle entirely within the image circle. Fortunately, my suppliers (Brunel Microscopes in the UK) have been good enough to provide me the eyepieces on sale or return so all the experimentation has cost me is postage and a bit of time.</p>

<p>I am no expert in this field. Only been using it for six weeks and am still coming to turns with the what and what isn't possible. I hope you're not as plagued by dust on the top surface of the eyepiece as I have been. Like the biting insects in Scotland it seems to be one of the things they don't warn you about in the brochure.</p>

<p>I have a Huey Pro. That gets the colours good enough for me but I can't get either of my monitors dark enough. As it happens, I'm not too worried about that: Aperture has a 'Brightness' adjustment in its Print dialogue for just this situation. I have all my print presets set to 1.22 which for my Epson printer makes the prints right too. Result is I have very little trouble with printing and all it took was a couple of sheets of paper to work out the 1.22 adjustment.</p>

<p>I have similar adjustments in the presets I use for exporting to a couple of the commercial labs I use occasionally. For the cheapo High Street print shops it actually makes little difference since they seem to normalise things anyway and what works one week doesn't necessarily work the next.</p>

<p>I would just love an f2.8 (or f1.8 if it were affordable) 16mm for my D80. It would be the equivalent of a 24mm FX and save me from carrying my heavy Sigma 10-20mm except when I know I'm going to need it. Such a lens would see me more or less complete in primes for most of the stuff I do (I already have 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8) and the zooms I have can deal with everything else.</p>

<div></div>

<p>If you're only shooting RAW then it really doesn't matter two hoots what you set your white balance to: what's stored in the file is what came off the sensor and that has no concept of WB at all. It may be (usually is) that the white balance set in the camera is stored in the file but that's really only of value to the in-camera preview and as an initial guide to the RAW processor you use.</p>

<p>If you don't believe me try this: take two pics of the same scene, one with the balance set to 2500K and the other with it set to 9000K. Load both into your RAW developer and set the WB to the same value , say 5500K, in each. The pics will be identical, all other things being equal of course.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I've been using a 135mm f3.5 Carl Zeiss (Jena) lens from the 1970s for macro shots (with a bellows or extension tubes) recently on a D80. It's all entirely manual but the results are very sharp. Used without the extension stuff it's a damned good lens too although it won't focus to infinity without a special adaptor. Cost me all of £43 ($66) on eBay.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>