paul_k1664875007

<p><em><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=9218371">Spencer Lange</a>, Nov 21, 2016; 01:14 p.m.</em></p> <p><em>I'm just curious, not particularly looking to get one</em><br /><em> The Lomo Petzaval was the only one I could find, as it's the only newly released one</em></p> <p>I have the 85mm Lomo Petzval (did have a peek at original 19thh century copies, but modifying them to fit a modern DSLR was a bit outside my competence), as already mentioned it's not the easiest lens to work (and focus) with due to the gear rack focusing system</p> <p>The swirly background is IMO a bit of an acquired taste, gets a bit boring after a number of pictures. What attracted me was the razor thin DoF (when shot near/wide open) which together with the very much limited to the center of the image centered field of sharpness can create an interesting (I think) image.</p> <p>That said, IMO not exactly a lens for everyday use, or a wide range of subjects (I think it's at its best with portraiture) so not my first pick as 'standard' short telelens, but nice to have for when the occasion arises</p> <p> </p> <div></div>

<p><em>If you're in a position where you're so busy shooting that you don't have time even to ask the opinion here of those who've done their own research, let alone do some yourself, I envy you!</em></p> <p>Actually, I do it the hard way.</p> <p>When I consider buying a certain lens (or camera, as far as that's concerned) I as mentioned start my research by looking for and (trying to) analyze the pictures I saw and liked.<br> Then, after having a.o. found out what lens was used, I do more research on other pictures, maybe not my taste, also taken with that lens, so I get a wider view of what and what's not possible with that lens</p> <p>Which BTW nowadays is much simpler then way back when I made my first serious steps into photography. In those days basically the only easily accessible resource was the annual reader's issue of Popular Photography, in which pictures from readers were shown, together with the technical info on camera, lens, settings, film and developer used (I still have copies of mid 60's issues)</p> <p>Based on that research I can make a much more informed and balanced decision on whether the lens will suit my demands and help me get the pictures I have (for the use of that specific lens) in mind, rather then getting tossed around in all kind of directions by the avalanche of opinions and 'reviews' such a question inevitably and always evokes on the internet.</p> <p>So not the 'quick and easy' way of just giving up and asking it the self declared 'experts' on the internet (and I don't have to mention there are plenty of those around ), but rather doing the dull and unglamorous footwork myself<br> After all, talk is cheap, in the end the proof of the pudding is always in the eating.</p>

<p><em><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=39504">Kent Staubus</a>, Nov 16, 2016; 11:56 p.m.</em></p> <blockquote> <p><em>OK, so you buy the 'sharpest' lens tested</em><br /><em> Do you really believe that, apart from getting a 'sharp' picture, that will make you a better photographer?</em></p> </blockquote> <p><em>Of course not. What a very sharp lens does for me is allow me to sell a bigger enlargement to a customer, for which I make more money. It also lets me crop down more.</em><br> <em>Kent in SD</em><br> <em> </em><br> But if the picture s*cks to begin with, no matter how sharp the lens used is, little chance the client will buy it</p> <p><em><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4303235">Andrew Garrard</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 16, 2016; 10:20 a.m.</em></p> <blockquote><em>Do you really believe that, apart from getting a 'sharp' picture, that will make you a better photographer?</em></blockquote> <p><em>Be fair. I don't think anyone believes that a lens will improve one's photographic skill - I've spent a lot of money not getting any better, to prove it. It's true that a poor lens can mess up an otherwise decent image, though - so I'd rather have a decent lens and camera, and know that I'm only going to mess up the shot due to my own inability. There are many good photos that can be taken with terrible equipment (and, if you're in the right place at the right time, with little photographic ability) - that doesn't make them bad photos, but it doesn't mean we should all invest in Lomography either. If you want a lens to do a better job with a particular problem (for example, avoiding what my 135 DC did to my shots of a friend's wedding) and you can afford it, go for it; if you're happy with what you've got or can't afford better glass, don't sweat it, and don't pixel-peep. There are images that are made better by more resolution, but very few images (yes, there are some) cease to be good just because they weren't captured in perfect detail.</em><br /> <br /><em> Also, having been to an exhibition and seen a professional print: Clearing Winter Storm? Not as tack sharp as you'd think. Doesn't stop me liking it.</em></p> <p>So what it boils down to is that all the DXO test, sharpness, contrast, Zeiss/Sigma/Tamron talk is moot.<br> <br />Whether a picture is 'good' or not, is a matter of aesthetics and personal taste, and yes, sometimes 'even' an 'imperfect' picture might turn out to be more appealing.<br> <br />If a lens is to be part of the equation, it may be as part of the analysis of how a certain picture is made, the light, composition, exposure, shooting technique, camera, and sure the lens.<br> And the interest in the lens should not be about sharpness, contrast or whatever, but about the way it renders the image and contributes to picture.</p> <p>Based on that I'd e.g. like to add the portraits of Julia Margaret Cameron and Lewis Carrol, or Ed Feingersh's 'Marylin in New York' to the '<em>Not as tack sharp as you'd think. Doesn't stop me liking it'</em> list</p>

<p>I'm a long time D800 (got two of them) and DF user (got both D800's and DF shortly after their introduction) who have a similar, not exactly robust, battery door construction.<br> In particular on the DF it tends to come off too easily (no personal long time working experience with the D600/610750, but the times I handled them I noticed they have the same battery door construction)<br> Although it might be said that considering the price of the camera(s) that feature might have been constructed more robustly, in my experience it, apart from the embarrassment when if falls of the camera (which in the case of the D800's fortunately is in my experience hardly ever the case), it doesn't really matter.</p> <p>When the battery goes into the chamber the springloaded orange tab will hold it into place, and since the electric contacts are on the top of the battery, well inside the camera, and thus in case the battery door is unfortunately lost, no issues with possible interruption of the electricity occur.</p> <p>So basically it comes with the (flimsy) construction, does happen sometimes, but as far as the operation of the camera is concerned, IMO doesn't really matter</p> <p>On a side note, the battery door of my SB800 has a similar flimsy built quality and also comes off too easily. And in this case it's even intentional (in order you can take it off and you attach the SD800, extra 5th battery chamber, more easily)<br> And when it does come off, quite a bit more of a problem, as it it's part of the electric power circulation, which without the door is interrupted.</p> <p>So (possible) loss of the battery door on the DF/D800/D810 is annoying, but IMO could be worse</p>

<p>OK, so you buy the 'sharpest' lens tested</p> <p>Do you really believe that, apart from getting a 'sharp' picture, that will make you a better photographer?</p>

<p><em>The D7100 is available at very reasonable prices, and has an excellent AF system.</em><br> The D7100 is indeed a neat little camera with, compared to e.g. a D70s (which I have personal experience with) and a D90 (from what I gathered from a friend using it) much better specs with regards to AF and high ISO (and the rest)<br> Got a 2nd hand one a couple of months ago to replace my D70S and D2X, which compared to the FX bodies I use as my first choice (D3, D800, DF) really were getting outdated<br> That said, based on my personal experience using the D7100 under bad light and on fast moving subjects, and assuming you have the cash, I would rather go for the D7200. It has a better processing chip which allows faster AF and better high ISO performance, and that's after all what the OP is after.<br> Sure, a high ranking FX like a D750, even a humble D700 would be better, but that will cost a lot more, especially since the OP is shooting a DX lens (and consequenly will also have to upgrade his lenses)</p> <p><em>I was using the AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G lens.</em><br> That should be able to do the job, fast enough as far as max aperture, in combination with high ISO is concerned, just like the AF</p> <p><em>I started with ISO at 3,200, the camera in P mode, AF-S ("sport" mode) & auto-area for AF (3D tracking with 11 points is unavailable in the "sport"</em><br> The ISO 3200 is a sensible choice, but then going with all kind of P and Auto Area/3D modes IMO is what cost you the shoot.<br> Basically you are giving all the important decisions out of your hands and rely precooked 'good for most, but really not refined enough to handle specific, more demanding, conditions' automated settings, IMO a recipe asking for inevitable disaster.</p> <p>Instead, my, based on years of shooting catwalk, sports (surf) and events, recommendations are:</p> <p>Camera: Continuous Mode (high speed transport Camera Manual page 65)<br> Obvious, just taking one shot and assuming it will be perfect is IMO especially with moving subjects a bit too optimistic)</p> <p>Exposure : Matrix Mode (Camera Manual page 87)<br> I personally prefer Manual Mode exposure, S Mode (shutter speed priority which will prevent the camera from contrary to A mode where the shutter speed is flexible, in auto mode choosing a too slow shutter speed) could be an option (but be prepared to have under exposed pictures)<br> I also strongly recommend to stay away from Spot Metering mode, next to impossible to find the ideal spot for metering the correct exposure on a erratically moving subject like a dancer<br> The D90 also has Auto ISO mode, in which the shutter speed and aperture you chose are left untouched, but the camera instead varies the ISO depending on the light conditions (my preferred option when not using flash and shooting under varying lighting conditions)</p> <p>Now the important bit (as far as shooting moving subjects is concerned)<br> Autofocus : AF-C mode<br> Camera Manual page 54/56</p> <p>Dynamic Area AF<br> Camera Manual page 173<br> you choose the AF point, aim it at the subject/area you want in focus, and the AF will track the subject while it moves.<br> Better then 3D AF, since in that option, the camera has to first analyze what to focus on as the starting point, to then track the subject.<br> The analyzing bit will cost some/extra time, causing a slight hesitation between the moment you push the release button, and the camera actually taking the picture. Also the camera may not focus on the area you were aiming for</p> <p>Don't know whether the D90 has a custom focus priority (usually in AF S mode: if the release button is pushed, the camera will only take the picture when it thinks it's in focus, even if the subject has left the spot the camera previously focused on) or release priority release setting (camera will take the picture when the release button is pushed, no matter whether it's in focus or not. Yes you will risk unsharp pictures, but with moving subjects that is far more likely to be the case with AF-S/focus priority).<br> So as you can gather I'd go for release priority</p> <p>Also, obviously shoot RAW</p> <p>In addition to that, rather then pushing the camera over ISO 3200 (which really is the highest iSO which will still give 'acceptable' - although that also is a matter of personal taste - results) don't be afraid to under expose.<br> Although not up to the level of FX bodies (or the more or less same generation D3, year of release 2007, vs D90 year of release 2008) the D90 already has the much praised sensor type with high quality (in case of under exposure) shadow recovery modern Nikon DSLR's have<br> So rather the going for ISO 6400 and higher with predictable bad IQ/noise results, shoot RAW, don't be afraid to under expose (in my experience up to 2 stops under exposure really should be no problem), and save the day in post processing by simply doing some creative shadow recovery (I for years use Nikon NX2 for that purpose, don't even have Lightroom or Photoshop)</p> <p>My (additional) 2 cents</p>

<p>In general, based on my own experience shooting dance (very long time ago using film camera's and manual focus) shooting moving subjects at 1/125th of a second does risk movement blur.<br> That said, based on the same experience, and shooting catwalk using similar equipment and shooting technique, depending on the timing of the shot that risk/ nubmer of OoF shots can be limited (although with 1/125th you will inevitably end up with a number of them).<br> If you shoot (ball room) dancers in the midst of a twirl or something similar, with only 1/125th you'll most likely get a OoF shot. But if you time your shot with the brief moment when dances 'freeze' after performing a 'figure' your chances for a sharp one will improve substantially.</p> <p>Also, there are several details missing in your message; which could help to give more specific advice.<br> - Is using flash allowed?<br> If you could use flash your problem could obviously be solved easily (higher shutter speed - X synch for the D90 is 1/200th, more DoF by closing down the aperture, motion freeze thanks to short duration the flash)<br> But from your description I get the impression you're not shooting people dancing just for fun, but rather for competition (<em>people are giving their all to the dance</em>) in which case flash would be just as distracting as the focusing light of the camera</p> <p>-what lens are you using?<br> Nikon only has two 1.2 lenses, a somewhat reasonable priced 1.2/50mm Ais manual focus lens, and the, also manual, very rare, and at around US3K -secondhand- very expensive 1.2 58mm Noct Nikkor</p> <p>So an AF lens might be a better option<br> A slow lens, like eg the 3.5-5.6/18-55mm or the 3.5-4.5/18/70 AF kitlenses, though will definitely be not up to the job under bad light<br> But e.g. a 1.8/50mm AF might even under bad light be able to do a much better job with even an older body like the D90 (which according to some reviewers like DPReview has a usable high ISO up to ISO 3200).</p> <p>That said, on certain Nikon speedlights, e.g. the SB800, you can turn of the flash while still using the so Wide-Area AF-Assist Illuminator<br> Using that option, rather then the camera emitting a constant beam of light, the speedlight will, when the release button is pushed will, just before the picture is taken, give of a series of, in my experience for the human eye hardly visible flashes, with which the distance to the subject is measured.<br> That info is instantly communicated to the camera.which will, when using an AF lens, make the lens focus at that distance (where hopefully your subject will still be) and allow a 'sharp' picture<br> So the above combination (speedlight with flash turned of, but Wide Area AF assist turned on, and an AF lens) might be a workable option</p> <p>- What AF settings are you using?<br> The D90 admittedly is an older body with an older Af module, 'only' 11 AF points (although my D1H, and recently sold D70S only has/had 5)<br> But having shot a fair bit of catwalk (sports as well) , one thing I learned from that is for shooting (fast) moving subjects using the correct AF settings is essential, and even with the D70S was very well possible.</p> <p>Sure, a more modern body with a better/faster AF module will, AF wise, most likely give better results.<br> But no matter how much better, using a slow lens or the wrong AF settings will annul those advantages and risk just as, and probably even more disappointingly, unsharp pictures</p>

<p>I don't completely understand what you mean with 'if it's not going to work'<br />If the lens is somehow broken in any way, I would stay away from it, since you'll be being it as far as I understand without any kind of guarantee<br> Also the price tag is not exactly cheap, average at best, especially considering the mounting clip (lens foot?) is missing.<br> It's a pretty big, heavy lens, and the lack of the foot will mean you eg won't be able to use a monopod (which especially when you have to hold it for a long time, e.g. during a concert, really is a great option - I e.g. use my 70-200 VRII on a monopod shooting catwalk shows -)<br> And of course the D5300 isn't a large body, so there might be a chance that the combination feels out of balance/uncomfortable to hold when used handheld (I for that reason always add a grip on the camera when I use such a big lens)</p> <p>The VR1 type of the 2.8/7-200 isn't really that bad though, on the contrary even, as you can read here http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html (Bjorn Rosslet is a among Nikon shooters very highly regarded reviewer)<br> This review however in particular discusses the lens when used on a DX body (like your D5300) <br> Nikon some time after the introduction of this lens also came with FX (full frame) bodies, and on those camera's the lens definitely showed serious shortcoming (for certain types of photography) such as loss of corner sharpness and vignetting<br> That was one of the reasons why they upgraded to the VRII version where those issues were solved</p> <p>In short, first and for all. IMO don't buy it if you fear there might be some kind of mechanical or optical (eg after a fall or banging it against eg a door post) optical issues.<br> Also not the lowest price possible, lack of the lens foot could become an issue at a later point of time/use</p> <p>But in itself not really a bad lens, really was top of the line at the time of its introduction<br> Excellent (optical) results on DX camera, reportedly mixed results though when used on FX bodies (which was kind of acknowledged by Nikon with the release of the VRII version)</p>

<p>As you post your question in the Beginners Questions forum, and detail that you basically only have a (one) camera and a (one) lens,rather then deluging you with all kind of new and unknown theory, I'd like to propose an approach based on a 'starting with nothing' base.<br /> So the premise is not how to get identical results (considering you have neither the proper equipment, technical knnowledge, or photographic knowledge base that's quite impossible the first time round) but just to help you get something that is going in the direction you're after, and help you built upon in future shoots.</p> <p>Basically the two major feats of the picture you show are a) the one piece, continuous background, and b) the relatively soft (as you can see by the shadows) and large (again as shown by the shadows, in this case the soft graduation from light to dark) light source.</p> <p>The one piece, continuous background ideally would be a large background roll or cloth, but can just as easily be a white/ one (light) color wall.<br /> So a large room could do the job (the size basically allowing you to shoot from a bit further away with a longer focal length to avoid optical distortion, and having your model further away from the background to avoid too much possibly distracting detail in that background)</p> <p>Lighting is a bit more tricky, yes, ideally a large softbox (but again to really use that in a correct way would demand more advanced photographic knowledge) and possibly an additional light on the background will do the trick. But as you don't have those, nor the experience to know how to properly work with those, not a realistic option.</p> <p>So the most simple solution would be using daylight, preferably from a large window or set of windows. Nothing really new, a technique used since the beginning of photography (and before that in drawing and painting, e.g. the paintings by Vermeer).<br /> As I mentioned earlier, I would try to find a (preferably) large room with an evenly colored/painted wall. Now add to that that ideally the room would have some large windows. Now you basically have your even background, and your large, relatively soft lightsource.</p> <p>Unfortunately, as you will soon notice, there are some snakes under the grass when working under the above described conditions.<br /> While daylight from a/a set of large window(s) will provide a large relatively soft light source, the light drop of from light to dark can/usually is quite stark. To get a similar kind (not the same, you really need more advance studio equipment for that) of shadow detail, you need to fill in those shadows.</p> <p>Considering we're talking a 'no extra equipment' approach, the simplest solution to counter that is using a reflector screen (that technique really is very simple, you can find plenty of 'how to' descriptions on the net so I won't go into that now).<br /> That can range from very simple and cheap (more on that below) or big, flashy and expensive.<br /> The simple and cheap approach can start with someone holding a newspaper or a white towel, or a plate of polystyrene foam, the kind you eg can find at Home depot, to a flexible/fold able (more expensixe) one <br /> <br /> As already observed, your camera and lens are, for the moment/first experiments more then adequate. As mentioned earlier, you should in order to avoid optical distortion (in the most extreme case, big head, smallish body) not shoot with a too short focal length, so keep your lens zoomed in at 55mm. (Remember you will also have to raise the shutter speed to at least 1/125th to avoid unsharpness due to camera shake)<br /> Yes, that will mean it (the lens) is going to be 'slow', but the 18-55 kitlens already is that to begin with. So to get a fast enough shutter speed, and be able to maybe even stop down the lens a bit (to get a better IQ) you'll need toraise the ISO.<br /> Not really a big issue on a modern DSLR like the D5200, IMO you should be able to go as high as ISO 1600 without significant loss of quality. <br /> <br /> Sure to get magazine quality you'd have to shoot at a lower ISO, but then you should e.g. also not shoot with a kitlens, in an improvised 'studion, and only using daylight.<br /> But it's as far as I can read in your post, your first venture into shooting this kind of picture.<br /> So I'd rather approach it as a learning moment, and just have fun, see how things work out wit a simple set up - and try remember what you did -, and not torture yourself by comparing your first time results with what somewhat with much more equipment, photographic knowledge, and experience did.<br /><br /> On a side note, don't let your model's expectations run too high, especially if she's doing it for free (unless she's paid, then she'd just have do her job professionally, stand, pose, and take the money and be off)<br /> It's your first time after all, so she'd better not expect 'Vogue' quality /pro level results (of course maybe you do have exceptional skills and pull of the trick, in which case kudos to you)<br /><br /> So just experiment, play around a bit, try to learn from your mistakes (during the shoot and afterwards when reviewing the results) and have fun (!).</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Sometimes happened to me with my FE back in my film shooting days.<br> I solved the quick and dirty way.</p> <p>Rewound the film (kept the lip sticking out so I could still reload and use it again) and manually rewound/turned the film sprocket roller in the opposite direction, as apparently the mechanism at times (e.g. when transporting a film too hastily after loading it) seems prone to blocking (only happened very rarely though) </p>

<p><em>My take on that would be that it's only worth considering if you have Capture NX2, not ViewNX2. Capture NX2, which was paid software, had some features (like control points) missing from Capture NX-D, which is free. But Capture NX2 users might also want to look at the free Google Nik Collection. Nik Software, which wrote Capture NX2 for Nikon, was acquired by Google and some of the same technology (including control points) is now available in this plugin collection, which was originally paid software but is now free</em><br /> <br /> Yes, you need to have NX2 to be able to take advantage of Raw2Nef, and NX2 is/was paid software.<br /> But then also is Photoshop, Lightroom etc., so that, as far as free vs paid is concerned, is not really an argument<br /> Over here in the Netherlands a major photo retailer (s o not some obscure 'I have an illegal copy for sale' shop) has NX2 for sale for Eur 159, as far as I remember less then the official MRSP at the introduction.<br /> And of course a free 60 days trial version of NX2.4.7 can still be downloaded https://nikonimglib.com/cnx2/index_en_eur.html#os-macintosh, similarly to the older NX 2.4.6 http://nikonasia-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8124/~/capture-nx-2-ver.-2.4.6-software-download (not sure if that is a trial version)</p> <p>On the other hand, if you already have a copy NX Capture V1 (the version which originally was introduced/offered for sale - and can also still be found for sale - with the D1, and could be used, with the free upgrades with all Nikon models up to and including the D3) you can get an upgrade set to make the transition to NX2 (although that upgrade copy admittedly does not work with the copy of NX Capture V1 that came for free with the D3 and D300)</p> <p>As far as the Nik Collection is concerned, although it's originally from the same company that developed NX1/2, it's in my experience (I downloaded and played with it when it became available for free) not a serious option<br /> <br />For starters, it does not process RAW files.<br /> And obviously to get the best results, especially when forced to work under less ideal circumstances, when, e.g. for lack of time or shooting under high pressure, it's impossible to for each shot find out the best settings, shooting in RAW to have enough room to make serious/high quality modifications/corrections in post processing after wards, is the only/best option<br /> I a.o. do a lot of location shooting of e.g. events, and catwalk, where getting the shot is the first priority.<br /> So you just shoot with the best approximate settings, and make corrections for the 'perfect picture' later, as you really can't take a series of pictures at different settings from the same shot, having only one moment to take it before the situation changes.</p> <p>Secondly, it, just like eg Photoshop Express (another free piece of software), in my experience, is very much just a higher end version of the Instagram filters, lot of 'easy' precooked effects and filters that need little experience and knowledge other then wanting to have a picture look 'nice' or 'interesting'.<br /> So hardly a serious piece of photo processing software offering the same level of personal fine tuning and adjustment as NX2 (where I unlike Photoshop eg can apply sharpening to a very local area, like only the eyeball in a face, without having to resort to more labor intensive masking and layering).</p> <p><br />With regard to the Colour Control Points, the level of sophistication and usability of that option in the Nik Collection is a far cry from, and IMO not comparable to those in (in particular) NX2 , and can't, apart from the same name, be seriously compared with it.</p> <p>So just like NXD, you get what you paid for, a up to a certain, none too serious level, usable piece of software, but you'll need to buy spend money on a better program if you want to use do some more serious post processing.</p>

<p>NX2 (including the last version 2.4.7) does officially not work with the D750, nor D7200, D810, D500 and D5 (maybe not other models as well, but these are the ones I'm sure of.<br> I have no knowledge of a, due to geographical location, different version of NX2 (Asian version?)<br> I personally use version 2.4.6 for my D3, DF and D800</p> <p>I did consider the D750 and D810 shortly after their introduction, and being a longtime, very satisfied user of NX1 and NX2 (just too old, dumb and inflexible to pour energy into learning Photoshop - last version I worked with was Photoshop 4.0 somewhere in the mid 90's - , Lightroom and other 'more advanced/better' programs) was kind of shy to possibly losing the option to continue using it as NXD seemed the only option for the files of those cameras</p> <p>Downloaded D750 and D810 files, as well as a copy of NXD.<br> Although it was possible to covert the RAW files into TIFF's in NXD, and then process those TIFF's in NX 2.4.6 (the version I had, no doubt and older or newer version would have worked fine as well) I found that the files, which already were big, then really become gigantic, in the region of well over 100MB a piece. Which obviously put a lot of strain on my computer (Macbook Pro i7, 16MB RAM, 762 GB SSD) pace and workflow.<br> As I also lost certain certain options I highly treasure (in particular highlight and shadow retrieval on a RAW level) I wasn't really happy with that option.</p> <p>I then however, and much to my delight, found this guy, Miguel Bañón who had created a small program called Raw2Nef) http://www.bagnon.com/raw2nef/<br> It works very simple, just download the RAW files on your computer, open RAW2NEF, and drag and drop the RAW files into RAW2NEF.<br> They get a small mutation in the exif, are 'recreated' as new files and get stored somewhere on your computer.<br> And then can be processed further in NX2 as an original RAW files (with the afore mentioned shadow and highlight options, but also the, in NXD no longer available, Color Control Points (IMO one of the most useful options in NX2)<br> Of course put it to the test, and it works as simple and flawless as described. As I decided not to get a D750 or D810, I don't use it in my present workflow, but have a copy on my computer in case I ever will.</p> <p>Only 'disadvantage' is that e.g. a D750 RAW will no longer, in the EXIF, be mentioned as a D750, but rather as a D600, and a D810 RAW as a D800 file, but that's only a cosmetic adaption, the file itself remains untouched.<br> Originally it would only work with NX 2.4.6, don't know if that has changed, and as said only with the files of the D750 and D810 (those are the ones I'm sure of, possibly the D7200 was also included). <br> It has since been upgraded, now also works with files from the Sony A6000, Sony A7, Sony A7II, Sony A7R, D7200, Nikon D500 and Nikon D5 (both on a Win 10 and El Capitan platform).</p> <p>It's a free program/download, although Miguel has the following to say on that :<br> 'If you find Raw2Nef useful, you can show your appreciation and support future development by donating! Patrons join a reserved list that receives beta versions and early warning of updates, as well as priority feedback on technical questions and issues.'<br> <br />If you're a user of it, IMO, a very reasonable request considering the lease of life it gives to the continued usefulness of NX2 with the newer and latest Nikon models.</p> <p>HTH</p>

<p>Hi Sally, I'm not a D750 user myself (did consider it when it was introduction, but despite the very tempting specs - and high praise in the reviews - went for a 2nd D800 instead) so can't speak from personal experience</p> <p>I however would like to draw your attention to this review of the D750 http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review by wedding photographer Ross Harvey who also uses it for shooting in low light conditions without flash, and with a.o. just a humble 1.8/35mm G lens.<br> In his review he gives examples of shots taken with ISO 9000 (so just a smidgen under the ISO 10000 you dread) and, IMO more importantly, of the amazing shadow/under exposure recovery (without significant, if any, loss of IQ) of modern Nikon DSLR sensors' and the D750 in particular (and he also uses Lightroom, which I assume for you as a Photoshop user is a viable option as well).</p> <p>The reason I keep coming back on this is because in real world use boils that down to the below.<br> At the moment, I have the impression, you're exposing a picture 'correctly' by using an 'extreme' high ISO setting, which unfortunately also comes with the cost of the inevitable risk of grain, and loss of IQ when noise reduction software is used.<br> <br />If however you go for a lower ISO (which of course won't risk heavy grain as much compared to a much higher ISO setting), and (somewhat) under expose (Ross shows an example of a 5 stops under exposed file), the Nikon sensors will allow, as illustrated in Ross Harvey's review, an excellent shadow recovery, while avoiding the 'extreme high ISO' grain and noise reduction software related loss of IQ<br> <br />I assume you could make some kind of 'standard' profile in your standard (not noise reduction) software (I can do that even with my old and obsolete Nikon NX2 software) which you then could apply on each RAW (I assume you're using that format, IMO the only option to go when working under challenging conditions) file when you start processing it, and thus help you reduce your 'present 45 minute per picture' processing time considerably</p>

<p>Sally, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression you're shooting the people who are attending the event, and not, as suggested in one of the reactions, the artwork displayed.</p> <p>If you are indeed shooting the people, why are you using such a long lens?<br /> I can understand that it's an excellent choice for shooting stage (I use a similar lens for catwalk), but it seems a tad long for shooting people at an event.<br /> The relative long focal length and closest focusing distance would force you to be standing further away, and also/consequently also have quite a challenge shooting small groups of people (in my experience people tend to huddle in small groups during such event while having a conversation, and kind of pose for a picture when asked, giving the kind of 'people during an event' sort of PJ like pictures you usually see)<br /> Also, f5.6 is closing down a lens pretty much, especially under bad light, while with an 80-200 that will still give you a relative small DoF.</p> <p>So my suggestion would be to use (a) shorter lens(es), which most likely not only will be faster then 2.8 to begin with (unless you go for e.g. a 2.8/24-70m, which I have the impression is the lens you're hinting at in your second reaction) but also allow to be used wider open then 5.6 while still delivering a sharp (possibly even sharper) picture and more DoF then a long(er) focal lenght.<br /> <br /> E.g. a humble 1.8/28mm AFS or 1.8/35mm AFS could cost you somewhere between £400 to £500, and a 1.4/50mm AFS £400 which in total is quite a bit less then the you £1400 mentioned (prices mentioned are based on those listed by Greys of Westminster, which is a pretty expensive address, so with a bit of creative shopping you probably can find them a bit cheaper)<br /> Perhaps, since you'd have to change them to change focal length, rather then zoom in or out, not as efficient as a 24-70, but apart from the with an eye to possible future projects IMO practical added value of having quality primes, as you can see quite a more economical.</p> <p>Of course using a shorter lens would mean shooting the people from much closer up (no more sniping away from a distance) and if you would decide for multiple focal lengths, also having, depending on the frame you're after without having to run around too much , to swap them during the shoot.</p> <p>As far as your IQ problems are concerned, ISO 10000 should not really be an extreme challenge for the D750. I have the DF which has a similar high ISO ceiling as the D750, and have no issues going there (on e.g. my D3 and D800 however, ISO 10000 is indeed a bridge too far).<br /> My experience with Nikon, in particular FX, bodies (got a D3 shortly after it's introduction, ditto with my D800 and DF) and high ISO is that i can easily underexpose a stop (or more) and still regain much shadow detail (and sometimes even better then that) without loss of IQ/heavy grain.<br /> <br />I have no experience with the several software programs you mention though, being a long time, very satisfied Nikon NX2 user (exactly for the above reason when shooting under bad light or using high ISO).<br /> Generally speaking though, in my experience any type of noise reduction (software) always comes with loss of IQ/sharpness (which is the reason I use it sparingly, if I do so).</p> <p>My 2 cents, HTH</p>

<p>Well, to begin with, you'll never be able to cook a high quality dinner in a microwave oven, especially a cheap one you can replace with a 'better' one within two years..<br> Such a quality level microwave oven usually is used for warming up micro wave dinners most if not all of the time (and I don't think I need to say anything about how those taste)<br> <br />So if you buy a digital camera of 'microwave oven' quality level you'll probably won't want to use it for something else then 'micro wave dinner' level pictures.<br> And in that case, yes buying an expensive camera may seem a waste of money.</p> <p>That said, if you have the intention of shooting quality pictures, n a short term or maybe at a later moment, you'll soon find out that although obviously talent is the most important ingredient, having good/decent equipment will also play a role in that.</p>

<p><em>Below is a photo of mine attached to a Nikon F3T. I elected to have the focus knob on the left. It works well for me.</em></p> <p>It's the same 'focusing knob on the left side' set up as on the straight out of factory Lomo Petzval lenses.</p> <p>The tripod mounted set up as well as confirmation that it works well that way illustrates the correctness of my previous remark on why a possible change of the focusing knob to the right side of the lens/camera, i.e. the side where on a (D)SLR as a rule the grip and release button are, may/is not the best choice (and I'm not even talking about shooting hand held).</p> <p><em>The original Petzvals are designed so you can unscrew the focus knob/shaft and flip it around so the knob is on the other side of the barrel. Don't know if that's possible with the Lomo. Looking at the photos on the website, it looks like it's different from the originals, but was designed so you can remove the shaft and flip it</em><br> <em> </em><br> And of course make me kind of wonder why, apart from the anecdotal value, what the added value of that 'recommendation' (?) was ......</p> <p> </p>

<p><em>The original Petzvals are designed so you can unscrew the focus knob/shaft and flip it around so the knob is on the other side of the barrel. Don't know if that's possible with the Lomo. Looking at the photos on the website, it looks like it's different from the originals, but was designed so you can remove the shaft and flip it</em></p> <p>Nice in theory, but obviously not a real life option for shooting this particular Petzval lens <strong>hand held</strong>, as it's specifically designed to be used with a (D)SLR (as it's only available with a Canon or Nikon lens mount)</p> <p><br /> And since those (D)Slr's all have their release button on the right side of the camera, flipping the knob to the right side as well means having to hold the camera with your left hand (something most modern camera's are not really designed for, as they basically always have the grip part of the body on the right hand side), not really the best way to hold a (D)SLR especially considering the added weight of the lens.<br /> You would then have to turn the knob/shaft with your right hand to get the picture in focus, reposition your hand to be able to push the release button, while during all that time your left hand would have to keep the camera still enough to keep the focus on the spot where you aimed it at while focusing</p> <p>Sure, if you have the camera on a tripod, and have a subject that isn't moving, having the know/shaft as well as the release button/grip on the right side would not be a problem.<br /> You would not have to hold the camera stable with your left hand, and not risk shifting the camera while moving your right hand from the focusing know to the release button<br /> But obviously we're no longer talking about shooting hand held anymore then.</p> <p>And from a practical point of view, since your left hand would no longer be needed to hold the camera, why not just leave the focusing know on the left side?<br /> You can then focus with your left hand, and push the release button with your right when the image is in focus.<br /> Especially when shooting a subject that is not completely still all of the time (even when shooting a close up portrait, the subject will be moving, even ever so slightly, all of the time) , being able to take the shot as soon as the subject is in focus.</p> <p>That's the way I use mine<br /> I have the camera and lens on a monopod (stable but with enough freedom of movement to point it up and down, move it from left to right) and focus with the focusing knob<br /> I use the green focus confirmation dot (I usually use this lens on a Nikon DF) and as soon as I get the confirmation symbol (I admittedly for non static subjects rely more on that rather then trying to get the picture in focus in the viewing screen) I immediately take the picture (I've developed a pretty good eye/hand reflex after many years of shooting moving subjects, e.g. dance and catwalk, with manual focus lenses)</p> <p>Sure, you could close down the aperture opening by changing the Waterhouse aperture plate<br /> But that would also influence (in particular) the background rendering of the lens.<br /> And since that swirly bokeh and characteristic shallow DoF when using this lens (nearly) wide open usually is the reason for buying it, phasing that out by closing the aperture might not result in the kind of image you're after.</p> <p>Enclosed picture in large format http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/156857551/original</p><div></div>

<p>IMO the whole D800 focusing 'problem' was, due to internet hysteria, blown out of proportion, and simply became a dead stop for fanboys to spell doom over Nikon.<br> The 'issue' was that with an early batch of D800's, when use with a wide angle wide open, the left AF point indicator would/might be incorrect.<br> I personally never ran anything like that, despite being an early adapter, also simply because I simply don't shoot with a wide angle wide open (Don't use a wide angle very often anyway, and if I do, I want the most DoF as possible so as a rule always stop down the lens as much as possible/a few stops)<br> Only time I did have an AF issue with it was after I dropped it from abut 3 feet on a concrete floor, after which NPS had to recalibrate the AF, but something similar happened with my D3.</p> <p>The moire thing is as you say a non issue, really depends on the subject you shoot and in real work very rarely, if ever happens.<br> With my D800's I, in a period over 4 years and ten of thousands of shots, only ran into something that kind of resembled moire one time, when shooting someone in costume made of what I think was some kind of tweed.<br> Looked horrible when viewed at in a small format, but disappeared when enlarged on a big format.</p> <p>IMO biggest difference between the three;<br> -D800E : lots of pixels which puts high demands on the lenses, pro level built (which also means pretty 'big' and heavy compared to e.g. mirrorless, very capable AF and high ISO<br> - D750: less, but still plenty, pixels, much more prosumer built quality (smaller and lighter then a D800, although that does not need to be a disadvantage) excellent (faster) AF and high ISO (between one and one and a half stop over the D800/800E, reportedly in the same league as the DF)<br> - D610: basically the entry level FX Nikon, apart from the improved shutter (after the oil spot issue) almost identical to the D600. Same number of pixels as the D750, lesser AF and high ISO (but still pretty decent), definitely consumer built quality (but IMO still much better and sturdier then many mirrorless).</p> <p>If your main criteria is image quality I'd go for the D800E. Yes, it's 'old' (introduction in 2012) but you can still find plenty of only lightly used ones.<br> I did consider the D750 when it was introduced, but didn't like the built quality and preferred the extra pixels of the (in my case) D800 (I often have to crop afterward to get the correct frame)<br> Eventually, after the introduction of the D500, went for a 2nd D800, a real old one with 120K+ clicks, but it was dirt cheap, and, as it turns out, still works flawlessly</p>

<p>I'm a long time (well over 35 years) Gossen Profisix, Lunasix and Lunasix F user (had occasional stints with Minolta and other brand meters meters like Broncolor and Bowens, but the Gossens are my own), used them back in the film days, and occasionally still use the Lunasix F when shooting in the studio.</p> <p>IMO if you work under day light, or artificial (eg stage, or at night in the street) the easiest option is to simply use your DSLR. Biggest advantage is that you immediately can see if you're on mark, and if necessary can make the necessary adjustments, reshoot and have immediate feedback again.</p> <p>Back in the film shooting days that was what Polaroid (backs) were used for, and even that wasn't 100% foolproof, since the Polaroids only had a limited range of ISO options.<br> So if you shot slower or faster (then the ISO of the Polaroids, which was the case most of the time) films, you still had to make an educated guess on how to interpret/translate the values found for the Polaroids back to the film used.</p> <p>Also, using a hand held meter isn't as simple as just point, take a reading, set the camera and shoot.<br> If you really want to get a 'perfect' exposure, you'll need to take a reading on the highest lit part, and then of the darkest one/deepest shadows.<br> Then you'll have to find/guess/decide on the hopefully correct balance between the two to again hopefully get an exposure that will leave your highlights bright, but not burnt out, and your darkest shadows as dark as possible without blackening completely (and in the worst case thus lose all details).<br> Of course you can also use a grey card (contrary to it's used very often nowadays it's not intended to find the correct color balance, but to get the correct exposure on '18% average' grey), but you'll still have take into account whether you hold it in a well lit, or dark/shadow spot.<br> Also you'll have to take into account the kind film you use, rule of thumb negative film best slightly over exposed, slides best slightly under exposed.<br> And, when getting the 'perfect' exposure is critical (eg product shoots on slide film in a studio), to be really sure, you'll have to take multiple shots and bracket/at various different exposures (the reason for all the large format film cassettes when shooting products, particularly in the studio)</p> <p>A DSLR will give immediate feedback (no more Polaroids, which BTW are getting harder and harder to get anyway, even despite the Impossible project), and also is much more easier to make changes in the settings, and just as fast see the results.</p> <p>Only reason I still use my Lunasix F at times n the studio is when I use studio flash units like my Hensels or Bowens, since I don't can't use my DSLR's TTL metering with those (I know, some studio units allow TTL metering, but I see the urgent need for the extra expense to get that 'option').<br> Also a hand held meter will allow getting a much better balance between the different lights, again very important when shooting a product/subject where the contrast between highlights and shadows are critical.</p> <p>I don't find a spotmeter very practical (have used my Profisix with the spot metering attachments, as well as with other 'dedicated' spotmeters)<br> To really take advantage of such a meter you again need to know exactly on what part(s) to take your readings, and still have to make an educated guess for the 'correct' balance between the readings on the highlights, and on the deepest shadows.<br> So it's still a 'take a set of readings, make an educated guess to get the hopefully 'correct' balance, shoot, maybe even bracket and reshoot.<br> Not a problem with landscapes (if you have plenty of time and don't have to take the changing light into account, e.g. when shooting at sunrise or sunset), product (in a studio), maybe even people (when shooting in a studio, and they're not busy, easily distracted subject like e.g. children)<br> <br />So IMO and experience not an real world option when having to shoot fast, or under (rapidly) changing conditions, or with lively subjects.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Bought the Lomography Petzval 85mm lens several years ago, not at the introduction, but somewhat later. Came beautifully packaged, with much love for detail, and great finish.</p> <p>My observations:</p> <p>- contrary to most pictures on the internet, it's more then capable of producing sharp pictures. Maybe not on the Nano coated G lens level, but IMO quite similar to the older Tamron, Sigma and other third party lenses from the film shooting days. It e.g. is sharper then my Russian 2.8/300mm Tpir (manual focus) lens, but still about as sharp as my 4.5/80-200 Ai Nikkor zoom wide open.<br /> IMO, to get a sharp picture, the right focusing technique is essential. Biggest mistake made is to using together with the camera hand held with one (due to the design right) hand, while adjusting focus with the other. The gear rack focusing system is really awkward to handle which when used with the camera hand held will not help to keep it stable, and the focusing area in the same spot. Which in my my experience won't be much of a help to get a sharp picture.<br /> When I use it, I have the camera mounted on a monopod (made a DIY L bracket to allow using it in portrait mode), which gives a stable platform and helps making focusing much easier, while still allowing ample freedom to easily sway it around while pointing it (for the kind of little corrections you make when aiming at a subject that is not completely still and frozen) .</p> <p>- Yes, the sharpness really is limited to a specific area in the center of the image. If you shoot with the camera in a horizontal position that means always having to keep your subject in the middle of the image, with a lot of space on he left and right. And if you shoot vertically/in portrait mode, you still have to do that, which effectively means he top half of the image is out of focus.<br /> Not a problem if that's hair or a hat, but it eg limits the options to take a close up frame filling portrait, and makes it a 135mm like lens when shooting a subject from further away (and you won't be able to use the 'top half' of the image for your subject).</p> <p>- It's best used wide/nearly wide open to get the full effect of the 'swirly' background and amazing bokeh (and limited Dof) that comes with using it wide open.</p> <p>- The swirly background is an acquired taste, can be useful/add something extra to a picture in certain situations, but be quite distracting/ a pain in other. A similar effect can be had eg with Helios lenses, which also have a more modern focusing system, but that IMO is a matter or personal preference.</p> <p>In short, indeed it's a lens with a IMO limited number of user options (probably best for portraits), which risks making it an expensive one trick pony. But under the right conditions and with the right subject it will allow to make quite amazing pictures.</p> <p>More examples (also at larger sizes) at<br> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20140614_fantasyval<br> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20140614_fantasyval<br> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20140920_elfia</p> <div></div>

<p>The DF is a pretty light weight body, as already stated by other in the same category as the D600 and D750<br> Definitely not in the same league as the D1/2/3 series (obviousy) or D800/810<br> But it IMO is strong enough for normal/daily/professional use (although in my experience modern DSLR's can't stand the kind of abuse the old flm bodies could handle)<br> Only 'real' weak point is the battery door (that one really feels plasticky), which much like the one on the SB800 speedlight, comes of pretty easiy. But contrary to the one on the SB800 that doesn't hamper the functioning of the camera as the battery stays in place.</p> <p>For the rest, like any other DSLR, the AF risks getting misaligned when the camera is dropped or bumped (had that on my D3 and D800's), and the body/lensmount can be damaged when the camera is handled rough (had the lens mount on my D2X bent/misalligned after someone stepped on the body with lens when I had it lying on the floor. Only was a problem when I wanted to sell it, in practical use I never, in the several years after it got bent, had any issues due while using it to that)</p> <p>As far as the D500 is concerned, although it's about the same dimensions as the D800/810, it's, at least in my experience, much lighter then the D800. Which is as to be expected, as it, similar to the DF, has much more 'plastic' in the body then e.g. the D800, let alone D1/2/3<br> (I'm a D800 user, and did. as I considered getting one, extensive research, including physical handling and testing, on the D500 shortly after its introduction - I'm a NPS member so access to it was pretty easy then - )<br> Also the D500 has' like the D810, its lensmount/ring is attached to a carbon/polyplasticsomething mirror housing, unlike the DF and D800, which in real world use can risk it to rip of completely from the camera like eg happened with this D810 http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3605.0.html (Admittedly with the metal mirror housing, chances are things will get bent rather then ripped off, which in both cases boils down to serious, possibly fatal damage)</p> <p>That said, I think the whole camera built issue get's blown out of proportions nowadays. Just compare the DF/D600/D750 with similar class mirrorless camera's, really not much better there (IMO sometimes even much worse).<br> Also, much like many all terrain cars used, most 'pro level' camera's never get used under conditions which really test the built quality, water resistance, shock resistance etc. and just get used for taking pictures when on holidays, during family outings and similar innocent activities</p> <p>I for several years shot surf (shore to sea) with my D2X and D3 (with a.o. a 4/200-400VR), which meant getting exposed for prolonged periods to salt water spray, sand and rain (I'm Dutch based, so no sunny Californian conditions)<br> Only issue I after a couple of years ended up with was that the salt somehow had eroded the contacts of the VR system (which I didn't use anyway). Problem got solved after NPS disassembled (and reassembled) the lens for inspection prior to a possible repair (never had that repair since, after the lens was reassembled, the contact got cleaned and the lens was working tiptop again)<br> Sure, I wouldn't risk using my DF that way, but that's what prolevel bodies are for after all.<br> But for normal day to day use it, like eg the similarly non pro/consumer D70S or D7100, can easily stand 'abuse' that comes with that kind of use.</p>

<p>I was in the same situation some time ago, although my main reason was that my at that moment current DX bodies were a D2X (very limited high ISO, not usable over/around 800 ISO. On top of that the lens mount of the D2X was slightly warped, but given the age and before mentioned ISO limitation repair was not economically feasible) and a D70S (lovely little camera, but really getting old/technologically speaking no longer up to modern standards - OK, I'm spoiled with o.a. 2 D800's and a DF - )<br /> So I sold them for whatever I could get and started to look around for an additional more modern DX body (sometimes the 'extra' reach from the crop factor comes in handy, while at times I want to take something with a better IQ then a cell phone, but not as big and expensive as a D800/DF, with me) .</p> <p>Did extensive research on the D500 ( as a NPS member I was able to handle it very shortly after its introduction), but IMO you want a smaller (DX) body, the D500 is not an option (the much improved AF and buffer/write speed are beyond reproach though).<br /> It's lighter then a D810 (I compared it with a D800, which is what I a.o. use) but the dimensions are about the same.<br /> Also price wise it's not a bargain, while I personally wasn't impressed with the higher (above 3200) ISO performance</p> <p>I finally settled for a 2nd hand D7100, which after I sold my D2X and D70S cost me little over Eur 350 (including a Wifi dongle, although I never use that one).<br /> Admittedly the D7200 has a much better buffer, but the improvement in high ISO and AF were too incremental for me to justify the extra expense (not interested in the reportedly better video).<br /> The D7100 has a similar menu to the D800/D810, the same AF sensor (although I'm not sure it performs on the same level) and red AF sensor set up, and identical battery, while being much smaller and lighter, with plenty of megapixels (and, if necessary, when you shoot 12 bit compressed RAW, you can extend the buffer up to around 10 shots).</p> <p>Only minor gripe I have is that there's no separate AF-On button you can use while keeping AF on the release button.<br /> AF activation is only possible with on the AE-L/AF-L button( and no longer with the release button) if you decide to use/program the AE-L/AF-L button that way.<br /> But I don't use it that way anyway, so not really a biggie for me</p> <p>For the rest I have the D7100 set up in the same way as my D800's/DF, (only a few very minor differences in the menu), which make switching between the FX and DF bodies during a shoot a smooth non brainer (I a.o. shoot catwalk, with a D800 + 2.8/70-200 on a monopod for the shots further down the catwalk, and a 2nd body with a short zoom for when the models get closer by/ near the end of the catwalk)</p>

<p>I think the real thing you're observing is a) the difference in IQ of prime lenses verses (kit) zoomlenses, and b) the difference in image rendering between older manual and AF-D lenses vs modern AF-S lenses.</p> <p>With regards to prime vs kitlenses, I think that discussion is closed pretty fast. Kit lenses are fit to be used in all kind of different situations (within heir focal length), but apart from being able to do the job/the jack of all trades character, in most of the cases lack the sharpness and IQ of primes, whether manual or AF.<br /> So when using them, one has to accept the loss in IQ (sharpness, contrast, 'character') as a trade in for convenience and speed (as in less need to physically move in closer by or further away to get the optimal framing all of the time)</p> <p>With regards to the older manual/AF-D vs more modern AF-S (and optical performance wise similar lenses from other manufacturers) it's IMO more a question of personal taste</p> <p>AF-S lenses, and (based on what I've seen and read in reviews and comparisons) similarly e.g. Sigma's and Zeiss Milvius/Otis/Batis (not sure if all of those can be used on a Nikon, not a Zeiss owner/User), are very much fixated on 'ultimate' corner to corner sharpness, resolution, and contrast.</p> <p>The older manual and AF-D lenses (and maybe very few AF-S lenses, like the 1.4/58mm AFS) are not as 'perfect' in that regard.<br /> In some cases even much 'worse (eg 2/135mm DC and 1.4/85mm AFD, 'notorious' for softness wide open, and CA).<br /> And even the, despite owning one, IMO very expensive 1.4/58mm AF is by many 'experts' considered soft/unsharp wide open, while having a corner to corner sombrero type sharp/unsharpness shape http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/58mm-f1.4g-af-s-nikkor/review/</p> <p>So if you're after that 'ultimate' sharpness, the older manual/AFD lenses IMO definitely are to be avoided.<br /> That ultimate sharpness though IMO comes at the cost of the way the image is rendered, call it character, a I hasten to admit very personal and consequently subjective benchmark.</p> <p>To put it in practical terms, when I eg shoot catwalk of surf, where I (for simple commercial reasons) need to end up with the sharpest pictures possible, I use my 2/200 AFS, 2.8/70-200 AFS or 4/200-400 AFS<br /> But when I shoot fashion, fantasy or personal work, I prefer falling back on my old pre AI and AI/AI-s 1.8/85mm Nikkor H, 2.8/135mm Nikkor Q, , and AF-D 1.4/50 AF D, 11.4/85 AF D, and 2/135mm AF DC, occasionally even even 2.2/85mm Petzval, and the 1.4/58mm AF (despite all the newer AFS and Nano technology still 'burdened' with much of the optical 'faults' of the older generation lenses) on my DF and D800's<br /> From a technical point of view Those older lenses 'struggle' with eg when used on a high resolution camera like the D800 (the DF IMO is more 'forgiving' in that regard).<br /> But in return for me their 'image rendering' makes up for that in a superior way, a price I'm more then willing to 'pay'</p> <p>At least, that's what I think ....</p><div></div>

<p>I think that expecting/demanding that <em>'every model, amateur or aspiring professional'</em> should be able to 'pose' is unrealistic, and should even practice for, only serves to take away the responsibility of the photographer to create an atmosphere which inspires the 'model' into <em>'the art of posing'</em> ( another highly unrealistic statement)</p> <p>A/most 'models' merely are well willing persons who are prepared to stand in front of the camera of the photographer, even despite feeling awkward while doing so.<br> It's the photographers job to make them feel more at ease, less fixated on (and paralyzed by) the camera, and to establish some kind of 'click' between them and the photographers which will make the feel more relaxed.</p> <p>Unfortunately most 'photographers' think that getting a 'model' in front of the camera suffices, and that merely pointing the camera will create the 'magic' which will make the subject know how to 'pose',or allow them to demand the model how to know how to pose.<br> While in the meantime, especially with DSLR's, the 'photographer hides behind the camera, lurking silently through the lens, while before, during and after almost every shot digging through and adjusting the settings and menus, and chimping and zooming in on the picture on the LCD.<br />Add to that the only too often given 'instruction' <em>No not that, do something different</em> and you have a recipe for failure.</p> <p>My experience (based on many years and experience with fashion photography on a, dare I say, more advanced level http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/fashion_root ) is that you even when working with a 'professional' model, you very rarely meet 'models' who know how to really 'pose' in a fluid, natural way.<br> Most have a standard repertoire of often very stereotypical poses (hand in hair, bending backward, etc), with which many (amateur) photographers are very easily satisfied with (and which contributes to the many stereotypical 'model' photo's on the internet), which has to be broken through to eventually get something more original.</p> <p>If you shoot non pro models but with a specific, related to their profession, intention for the pictures, that's much easier. There usually is a 'stereotypical' look that already exists with that profession (actor, lawyer, bank manager, even 'hipster entrepreneur') which the subject already has in the back of his mind, which the photographer should be aware of, and try to emulate, and 'simply' make his models 'pose' in that way.</p> <p>I e..g. took these pictures at a 'fantasy' event (love to shoot 'fantasy, even if just for fun, actually more fun then fashion, thanks to much less battles between egos, and lack of presumptuousness). Obviously the 'models were mere visitors who dressed up for the event, silently hoping to end up with a few nice pictures, and in no way professional or experienced models.<br> But despite only having maybe 3 to 5 minutes for a 'session', taking the time to learn about the 'character' they were playing, and allowing them to 'do their thing' while gently correcting them (without halting them) during the shoot resulted in these pictures http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20160828_abunai</p> <p>I think that if a photographer goes into a shoot, he should have done his homework and already have an idea what he thinks he's going to shoot, even if during the shoot he might change/adjust his original idea.<br> Part of that preparation is collecting some examples as a visual orientation for the model, not only for the posing, but also clothes and make up (only too often the 'photographer' thinks asking the model to take along 'something' will suffice to 'exactly' get what he - without saying it out loud - had in mind).<br> This 'starting point' is IMO crucial as it will give the model a point of reference what the pictures are hopefully going to look like, what to do, how to dress, etc.</p> <p>However, it should be very important that the photographer also keeps his own creative and other limitations in mind too.<br> Just having the latest camera, sharpest lens, most megapixels, and biggest flash around is no guarantee for a successful shoot, it's only the technical side of it.<br> And getting a set of examples of pictures of a level which is way beyond the abilities and level of the 'photographer' is just as contra productive, since the photographer will during the shoot get only revealed as another 'emperor without clothes' very fast (Guess that's the downside of todays camera LCD's).<br> And I'm not even talking about the logistics (right location, transport, maybe a MUA, stylist, lighting equipment, necessary to achive a certain look/technical level) and if lacking, possibly making it next to impossible to recreate that 'beautiful moodboard' thought out beforehand.</p> <p>So yes, of course a lever of technical competence and mastery is required, and having decent equipment will help making an already good (creatively) picture even better.<br> But apart from the techie stuff, it's just as, if not even more important, to be creative and, since you're working with other people, to be able to communicate and inspire, and in a very practical way to coach the model/subject/person in front of the camera.<br> And to push the release button in the right moment when that 'click' between the model and photographer appears and capture the moment.<br> If you can't do that, or don't try doing it, IMO you have little reason to make all kind demands of your 'model'.</p><div></div>

<p>From the many brands that use the K mount (most of which are not in the Nikon/Canon level of reputation) obviously Pentax would be the first choice</p> <p>The later/last generation of Pentax MZ film camera's still have the K mount, so you could for the time being keep using your present lenses, but also offer AF, which obviously becomes possible when you upgrade to AF lenses.</p> <p>And of course you can also keep using both manual and AF lenses on future Pentax and Samsung DSLR's</p>