david_r._edan

So, freshly charged, those batteries get to about 4.2 volts. Even not-so-new RCR123's measure about 4.1 volts, fresh out of the charger. This is way above the 3.2 V or so of the primary lithium CR123 cells that also remain close to that value almost until the complete depletion. I happen to own a single RCR123 battery which came with a flashlight I bought. Just to see what would happen, I 'discharged' it until it read 3.4V on the meter and I just loaded it into the Sekonic. I haven't run the device through any 'extensive' tests or anything like that but the meter seemed to work just fine. So, my question is, should I risk putting in a freshly charged RCR123? The way I see it, 1 of 5 things could happen: 1. The Sekonic meter functions properly, producing accurate readings. 2. Everything appears to be fine, however, in reality the readings are off. 3. The produced light readings are either correct or incorrect, the instrument appears to function properly, however, its life is being shortened by the higher voltage battery cell. 4. An over-voltage protection is tripped and the device does not power up. 5. A catastrophic component failure which requires repairs. *Keep in mind, that at the time of this instrument's engineering there were no 4.2V batteries that came in the size of CR123 cells, as far as I know, anyway. I would be surprised if this meter knew how to cope with the quite significant voltage drop of the RCR123 cells, which is from 4.2V all the way down to about 2.8V, at which point these cells are still usable in some devices. It would be beyond awesome to hear from someone who's been actually using this particular model with RCR123 batteries for at least a couple of years or so but I'm probably asking too much. Thanks!

<p>That's a bummer, man. I kinda had a feeling it wasn't that easy. Oh, well...<br> Thanks and<br />End of discussion.</p>

<p>Nothing ridiculous about it. If I knew how to get the meter into the Radio flash mode w/o the actual radio module it would be a one-hour job, given everything can fit into the compartment. The time spent on research and what not?.. Yeah,.. I guess, there's that too. It's inevitable when one wants to mod an electronic instrument without risking ruining it in the process.<br /> <br /> By now I have strong evidence (actual tests) that the L-608 does not make any kind of output via those pins, in the corded-flash mode.</p> <p>Connecting the Yongnuo transmitter to the PC terminal? Like.. duh.. I already have it set up like that. I attached two small pieces of self-adhesive velcro: One to the battery compartment lid and the other to the transmitter, so I can attach and remove the transmitter at will. And I'll do you one better: To reduce bulk (and cost) I didn't actually use a hot-shoe adapter. I wired a short PC-cable directly to the transmitter. It works awesome, though it looks and feels gnarly. Plus, there's the extra battery (transmitter) that I have to worry about.</p> <p>Anyway,<br /> Thanks for the advice.</p>

<p>If you say so, not gonna argue there...</p>

<p>All are valid points, everyone. The Acratech bracket is made from steel. You can't beat that. But how about this bracket?:<br /> http://madforcamera.com/en/shop-by-brand/53-mestos-cd-5dm3hl-l-plate-for-canon-5d-mark-iii-vertical-grip.html<br /> It's also mentioned here. Scroll down for pictures:<br /> http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/22-pentax-camera-field-accessories/66603-universal-l-brackets-4.html</p> <p>It's no steel but weight is also one of my concerns, so this one being lighter than the Acratech's bracket is a major selling point. Anyway, this Korean-made bracket, looks sturdy enough and it's made from this alloy:<br /> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6061_aluminium_alloy<br /> http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA6061t6<br /> Also, there are claims that this bracket is laser-cut, as opposed to being cast. I don't know how valid those claims are, though.</p> <p>Apparently, these guys make lots of other brackets, plates and what not and their price points are only marginally lower than the premium, US-made stuff. Well, in my case, I guess the considerable difference is due to the fact that Acratech's bracket is made from steel.<br /> Anyway, it looks like I'm going to pull the trigger on this one. I just need to find a fitting, low-profile clamp for it. Maybe someone can recommend one? Obviously, I'm looking for something that offers more than one attachment point.</p> <p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Hi,<br /> I have a Nikon D800+grip and a custom RRStuf QR Arca Swiss plate that is permanently attached to the bottom of the grip. I want to be able to (sometimes) mount the camera in the vertical orientation on my ballhead, plus in another configuration that I don't want to get into here. I really like this kind of solution as opposed to having a 'conventional', 'permanent' L bracket:<br /> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/736388-REG/Acratech_1139_Extended_Universal_L_Bracket.html<br /> Here's another link for your convenience. Scroll down for some pictures:<br /> http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/review-of-acratech-extended-universal-l-bracket_topic62685.html<br /> <br />This product seems to be exactly what I need, however, it is kind of expensive. So, I did me some poking around and found lots of cheap, Chinese-made, 'universal' L brackets on ebay. On a few of them it is possible to mount a cheap (or expensive) Arca Swiss clamp. The problem is that all of those L brackets are not large enough for my D800+grip combo but I'm sure there's something.</p> <p>*This is the solution that I want, even though a custom RRStuff L bracket for my D800+grip is (only) $190. It is not entirely about the money. Before shelling out 250 bucks for a piece of metal, I want to see what else is there, besides the Extended L bracket from Acratech, which I think is (a little) over-priced. I guess, I don't want to overpay for this hunk of metal, even if it's American-made, without knowing whether or not there is, a lower-priced product of comparable quality and, possibly, extended functionality. So, there's that.<br /> Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks!</p>

<p>Hello.<br /> I want to see if I can integrate this little transmitter <strong>INTO</strong> my Sekonic L-608:</p> <p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/YONGNUO-RF-600TX-2-4GHz-Wireless-Remote-Trigger-for-YN560-III-Flash-Nikon-DSLR/162255546578<br /> If I completely disassemble this transmitter and strip it of anything I can chuck, including the battery, I might be able to fit the essentials into the tiny compartment in my L-608 that's reserved for the wireless module.<br /> Both, the Sekonic L-608 and the Yongnuo transmitter are powered by a 3V battery, so this is basically what gave me this idea. However, when I took my multi-meter to the wireless module connector, I was able to read 5 volts between some of the pins, so, I may have to use a resistor there but it's not a big a deal. That's about as much blind-testing as I'm willing to do on my L-608. Without knowing anything about the pin designation I'm not going to risk drawing any actual current from them.<br /> Then there's the "fire" set of pins that I have no idea are which. Without hooking up ALL the pins to a proper scope I couldn't tell which of them are actually used to transmit the "fire" signal. I might experiment with this but I rather I wouldn't. Especially that I don't know if the L-608 even makes any kind of output through that connector when the unit is not in the "wireless flash" mode. As far as I know, there's no way of getting into that mode, unless there's an actual wireless transmitter installed. I couldn't find anything in the Custom Settings but maybe I missed it.<br /> Maybe it's possible to shorten a pair of pins to fool the L-608 into thinking it has a wireless module installed.<br /> <br />So, what I need is a datasheet for either one of the light meters that are similar to my L-608, OR a datasheet for either one of the wireless modules. I just need to know what each of those pins is used for and I'll take it from there.</p> <p>Can anyone help me with this? because I wasn't able to find anything on my own.<br /> Maybe there are actual markings on other models or some of the transmitters. On my L-608 there is nada...</p> <p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Don't get the one from Nikon. While optically it's fine, the effect on the sky is not very pronounced.</p>

<p>Thank you for that insight. I do realize the benefits of MF in videography and I wouldn't have it any different myself. Zeiss make some astonishing $$$$$ cine glass and I'd be all over it <strong>if</strong> I was into video, which I'm not... So....<br /> I've been following the discussion in the other thread, started by a gentleman who's trying to figure out a way around this limitation (lack of AF) and it is sad... It's a damn shame that people who spend so much money on top quality glass can't even get sharp pictures out of it because there's no freaking AF! People think: No AF? Oh well, I can do this. I'll just have to work a little harder. At least I'll have the best pictures there can be.... Little do they know that getting that focus with a MF lens is like a full-time job, especially working handheld. Then there's the light(s), the exposure, controlling the subject(s) and/or the assistant(s), interacting with the client... Jesus, the composition... and after all that cluster****, the better half of the pictures have to be thrown away because they're OUT OF FOCUS!? Personally, I don't need this kind of crapshoot or literally, "crap shoot", however you wanna call it. I can truly feel Patrick's frustration. But I knew better than to shell out $$$$ on a non-AF lens. Never actually owned a MF lens because I've known what kind of nightmare manual focus is since my <strong>film days</strong>, when the resolution was what? 16MP? If that.<br /> But wait a minute, what do I care if there's no AF? All I shoot is some stupid landscapes on a tripod, right? How hard can it really be? Well, most of them landscapes are HDR panoramas, which means I get to work in difficult lighting conditions others wouldn't even consider feasible. I can be out in the desert, midday, in the harshest light you can imagine, shooting some B&W, HDR scenics. How do I <strong>focus</strong>? Live View? Good luck seeing anything on <em>that</em> LCD! With a $90, Nikkor 50/1.8D all I have to do is <strong>listen</strong> for the focus confirmation 'beep'. With the 55mm, $4,000 Otus I have to use some retarded, useless gizmo and/or throw the jacket over my head like some kind of moron who thinks he's Ansel Adams in the 40's, shooting with a view camera. And even then I'd have to screw around with the damn thing until my eyes start bleeding? Is it in focus? No, I don't think so. Maybe a little to the left? Left... left... S**t! Too much.. Now a little to the right... A little more... Dammit, it's getting hot in here. I can't breathe. Screw it! Good 'nuf! Whatever!.. What's the recycle bin for anyway? I really shouldn't care that in 2 hours I'll be 100 miles away never to be back again for a re-shoot, because after all: <strong>I've got a 55mm, 1.4F Zeiss FREAKING OTUS!!!</strong></p> <p>Not a rant. Just telling like it is.</p>

<p>I agree that Zeiss is a whole different world, which I would be happy to be part of, even at the current price points. That lack of AF is a real bummer though. I don't understand why they're so determined to keep restricting the capabilities of their best glass. They produce AF lenses for Sony and others, don't they? Canon and Nikon are Japanese companies too. So, what gives? If they were pushing out AF lenses for DSLRs, they'd be able to sell a whole lot of them, which would increase the production and consequently drive the prices down, which in turn would allow them to sell even more lenses.... I guess large production numbers is not on their agenda. So what <em>is</em> their marketing strategy? Reaching only the niche market? Quality over quantity and all that philosophy?<br /> Personally, I would love to see a new and different course of events, even if I wasn't allowed to buy one single Zeiss lens, as it would give Nikon (and others) a kick in the *ss, which would, undoubtedly, benefit the end user. But who am I to tell Zeiss how to run their business? They've been doing fine without my advice for a loooong time. And I do realize that MF lenses for reflex cameras is more of a hobby to them as they have so much other stuff going on. They make them mainly because they can, not because they need to.</p> <p>The way things are right now, I'm not buying jack s**t. Just waiting to see what happens next.</p>

<p>Yeah, that's why I said "AF lenses". Zeiss have to offer some of the best glass there is, in every spec (accept the size and weight) but the absence of AF is a deal-breaker for many, including myself. The Sigma 50/1.4 is very good as is the 200/2. I would even push it by saying that the Tamron 15-30 is an excellent companion to a camera such as my D800, considering that it's an ultra-wide zoom(!). However, the list is very, very short indeed.<br /> It's obvious that Nikon need to step up their game in the lens department. You yourself mentioned only two(!) Nikkor lenses in reference to being suitable for a 36MP sensor. Personally I've been aware of this for a long time. Sadly, most Nikon fanboys choose to keep the blinds on.</p> <p>I admire Nikon's philosophy with regards to the F-mount and I say: keep it up! So, how about utilizing its full potential by using the entire image circle? I <em>have</em> seen a few wide-angle lenses with the rear element being a 'rectangular', so I think there would be a problem there, but most lenses do produce a fairly perfect image circle. The potential in a 36X36mm sensor is huge, especially for those shooting stitched panoramas (myself included). And no one would be 'stuck' with 'square pictures' as on the back of the camera body (or wherever) there would be a selector for choosing between the Horizontal, Vertical or Square formats. This idea is almost stupid for a DSLR (though doable), however, for a mirrorless camera it makes a lot of sense, especially if you take any sort of physical shutter out of the equation.<br /> Just imagine the benefits: No need for a vertical grip, no special tripod heads that tilt 90 degrees to the side, no L-brackets. I'm sure there's more.<br /> Plus, the lenses that turn out to be incompatible with this format would still be <strong>very</strong> usable in the Horizontal mode. It's a win-win.</p>

<p><em>If you must rely solely on face detection, you need to stop down the lens quite a bit to insure everything you want in focus is.</em></p> <p>Bad focus is bad focus. Covering it up by stopping down is bad practice. This is especially true for 3-dimensional objects like the the face. In any case, if the focus is not where you want it to be, it also means that it is where you <em>don't want</em> it to be. In portraits it usually means that the tip of the nose or the ears appear sharper than the eyes. If the focus ends up somewhere on the back of the head, stopping down will only make those ears look sharper, relative to the still blurry eyes.<br> In LV you don't need to compensate for focus mismatches of the AF system due to bad lens design or any of that. Focus acquisition occurs right there on the image plane. I've had very good results with the D800 and an old 105mm Sigma, shooting extreme closeups of myself as wide as F4 (F2.8 was way too surreal for my taste). The face detect in LV worked wonders. The D750 should be just as good if not better. The shallow DOF only makes it easier for the AF to home in on the eyes as everything else is a blur. The key is to be completely still until the picture is captured.</p>

<p>I'm a focus nazi. To me it is not only the softness of a slightly defocused image that bothers me but also the sharpness of objects that are meant to be out of focus. An example: slightly soft eyes yet perfectly sharp ears in a portrait. (not that I shoot those). The focus has to be where it's <em>supposed</em> to be and it has to be spot-on. So, even if in the real world slight focus errors might not matter to most, if the focus accuracy is marginally sub-par to what can be achieved via LV, it is still a big deal to me. Decent AF lenses that can exploit the full potential of a 36MP sensor in terms of resolving power almost do not exist (at least not for Nikon bodies). When I shoot with my D800 I need to know that I'm squeezing every bit out of the (already inadequate) optical resolution that's available to me by at least making sure that the subject is in perfect focus.<br /> 99.99% of the time I'm on a tripod with a cable release, even in broad daylight. Naturally, it's not very hard to acquire good focus of a static scene via LV. Nothing can beat that. You might get close but it wouldn't be close enough for me. So, to me, attempting to fine-tune the AF on any given lens is a total waste of time. Those who shoot handheld, cars, birds, athletes, or any of that, simply have no choice. Do perform the procedure. There will be a noticeable improvement. You might even be totally fine with the pictures that you get out of a 24-70, especially if you shoot with a D750. To me the margin of error would be unacceptable and I'm not talking just about the <em>Tamron</em> 24-70.<br /> <br />Personally, I can't wait to get rid of the mirror, the shutter and even the physical diaphragm. Mirrorless technology is getting there but it's not quite there <em>yet</em>. I agree that the EVF needs A LOT of improvement. This is perhaps the only reason that I'm still shooting with my D800 today. But in less than a decade there will be handheld cameras that are capable of displaying live HDR picture and (obviously) record HDR stills and footage. When (not if) this finally occurs, the DSLRs will be out the door faster than you can say 'mirrorless'.<br /> And it is only a matter of 2-3 years before even Nikon begins to offer viable FF, mirrorless alternative(s) to at least some of their DSLRs. I'm glad that Canon are already trying. I just hope that someone finally gets the balls to produce a 36X36mm sensor. The rest will follow.</p>

<p>I've had excellent results with my D800 and the Yongnuo RF603NII remote, with different lenses, including the 50/1.8.<br> By using Live View and putting the focus in the face detect mode I am able to get 8 photos out of 10 (but usually better) with the focus right on the eye(s). And for the record, I'm a focus nazi.<br> <br />In the past I was always able to shoot very decent (and in focus) self-portraits on film cameras like the F5, using various techniques for focusing and framing. None of that is relevant anymore. Just use the face detect in the LV (and a self timer). Take extra care not to move your head during and between the focus acquisition and the actual capture.</p>

<p>I truly admire Sigma's effort but all it essentially does is "get you close" to the kind of focus you were gonna get with LV anyway, with 'zero' calibration or any of that BS. This is true, of course, only for certain kinds of static subject matter. Lucky for me this is mostly what I want to shoot anyway.</p> <p>I don't see how a "DSLR camera from the future" can achieve the kind of focus accuracy that the mirrorless users have been taking for granted for years now. It's not happening, so I'm done "hoping".<br> For this and other reasons DSLR is a dying breed, even though hardcore fanboys will not openly admit it.<br> It's nothing personal but like many others, this technology is becoming inferior and therefore obsolete.</p>

<p>To the OP:<br /> You need a control, which in this case would be a perfectly focused image that you obtain via the LV.<br /> Then there's the standard deviation, or however you want to call it. It means that you need to take SEVERAL (at least 5, or more) shots at each of your "focus corrections". You defocus the lens manually, engage the AF and capture. Repeat at least 5 times before changing any settings. If everything's fine with your imaging system then all of those test shots will be nearly identical. If all or most of them are noticeably different then you know that you've got a problem. It is not uncommon to have a lens that just won't give you any consistency with regards to AF.<br /> Once you've picked your "best" (and the most consistent) tests shots, it is time to compare them to the control (that was shot via Live View). You superimpose the control image with the test(s) in Photoshop. By making the layers visible/invisible you should get a clear picture of how well your camera/lens focuses at any given setting.<br /> <br />Keep in mind that any given AF correction will be valid only for the given focal length and the distance to the subject. Which mean that if you've been shooting your tests charts from 6 feet away, when you go outside to shoot some scenics your AF correction won't do you any good.<br /> DSLR's are notoriously bad in this regard because the AF occurs in a place other than the image plane. Fine-tuning successfully a zoom lens like your 24-70 is extremely unlikely. <br /> Personally I've switched to focusing via LV the day I got my D800 and never looked back. This type of focusing is not suitable for every subject matter there is though. So basically, if I know that I can't focus via LV, I don't shoot. Plain and simple. Your philosophy may differ.</p>

<p>I can kinda see why Nikon would not let anyone change the image comment but taking this thing to exiftool? That is a major pain in the rear... Damn... whatever.<br> Thanks anyway, man.</p>

<p>Yeah, so, it's a very basic question. Suppose I want to change the "Image Comment" that was embedded by the camera into a bunch of NEF photos that are not supposed to have that comment. How would I do that with ViewNX 2? Don't know if the camera model is any relevant but right now I'm going over some old photos I took with a D70s but later on I'll also have to "fix" a bunch of photos from a D90 and a D300.<br> Thanx.</p>

<p>With optical resolutions below 4000dpi, you could run into serious film grain aliasing problems with certain emulsions, chiefly color negatives but other types too. Not sure what's the deal with flatbeds these days but I doubt that any affordable models can scan at true, optical 4000 dpi. Plus, I haven't heard of any digital ICE-compatible flatbeds but then, I didn't really do any research on this. At any rate, scanning a 35mm film frame at 4000 dpi will give you an image of only about 21MP. There's little point (but still is) of scanning higher than 4000dpi, however, going below that, to me is a no-no. Not sure where the flatbeds stand in this regard...<br /> If all you're planning to scan is 35mm film, then the most sensible way to go about it would be to get a dedicated 35mm film scanner. Personally I'd stay clear of Minolta as they've had a terrible QC record. You may get lucky and get yourself a unit that's 100% fine but it's a crapshoot and the odds are not in your favor.<br /> And I wouldn't fuss about getting an old film scanner so long as it was supported by Vuescan, since it's the only sensible way of utilizing the full potential of the scanner anyway.</p>

<p>One solution would be this:<br />www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcW6w_I_c6g</p> <p>I've had good success with their old unit. The new device looks much more convenient, plus it's very affordable.</p>

<p>Laser printers definitely have their place in "photo printing". They can be even superior to ink-jets in several respects. However, even the best laser unit is no match for a good ink-jet printer in terms of photographic picture quality. Tom, are you sure you want to get into the whole "calibration" deal with your laser Brother? I personally wouldn't bother BUT if I also had a dedicated ink-jet photo printer (which, no doubt would require calibration), I would also try to calibrate my color laser unit.<br /> If you insist, it all actually starts with learning and understanding color-management. Then you would need to purchase the necessary equipment and acquire the know-how required to calibrate your display. And only at that stage one normally would purchase the equipment and attempt to create custom color profiles for any of the printer+ink/toner+media combinations.<br /> Best case scenario: It takes you a lot of time and entails some considerable expenses.<br /> Worst case scenario: You fail to achieve adequate consistency and the result is wasted time and money with frustration on top.<br /> But if you're determined, who am I to tell you not to give it a shot?</p>

<p>Have you ever held an F5 in your hands? While ergonomically it's pretty sweet, it weighs like a brick, especially with 8 AA Alkaline cells. It really is that heavy.<br> Unfortunately it is not an easy choice for anyone, as the F5 has some features that other Nikon bodies simply do not (we're not talking about the F6 here).<br> <br />• The most important would probably be the metering. F5 is much better in this regard.<br> <br />• Mirror lock-up is very important to me, so in my scenario the F100 would be out.</p> <p>• Multiple exposures. If I remember correctly, the F100 has a limit on those. It's probably 9 or 10. With the F5, there is no limit whatsoever. There are many, many non-gimmicky shooting techniques that call for multiple exposures, so it boils down to whether you use them at all and if you can keep the number under 10.</p> <p>• The F100 covers only 96% of the actual frame, while the F5 shows 100%. In my case 96% would be a deal breaker, as I scan my film and use the entire frame. It depends on the film carrier and other factors but some people cannot use the whole area of the frame anyway, so for them a coverage of 96% is actually better.</p> <p>• With the addition of an optional MF-28 data back, the functionality of the F5 expands even further beyond what is possible with the F100. The question is: do you need those functions?</p> <p>For a technical shooter, who works around his studio, mostly on a tripod, the F5 is the obvious choice.<br> For a handheld shooter who is mostly out in the field, the F100 is worth considering because of its lesser size and weight. Although, in those conditions, not having the F5's metering would be a disadvantage. Also the F5 is more rugged and weather-sealed than the F100.</p> <p>So, yeah... It's not an easy choice. Ideally, one would have an F5 and an F100, maybe a couple of each.</p>

<p>That fact that your MF-28 has just been sitting around with no, or dead batteries inside, doesn't tell us much about the unit's QC.<br> One useful piece of information is the serial number. If I come across an MF-28 with a serial number in that range, I will probably pass because the unit would have been manufactured around the beginning to mid-production run.<br> <br />Thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks, Marc!<br /> Well, I pretty much thought that that was the case with the MF-27, hoping to be wrong. I wouldn't judge this thing based on the number of contacts but you're probably right. Plus, that quote from the Photo Secretary's manual does indicate very strongly that the only way to input the date/time is, indeed, via the MF-28.</p> <p>I couldn't find any information on the serial numbers and production dates of the MF-28. That info may be buried in those thousands of hits I get on google, where they talk about "Manual Focus" ("MF"), 28 mm lenses.</p> <p>I still think that there's a decent chance that later-production MF-28 backs are much better in regards to the LCD longevity.</p> <p><em>"...After five to six years of normal use, however, LCD's contrast may deteriorate..."</em></p> <p>5 to 6 years? Why so specific? It sounds very suspicious. To me this indicates that there was a <strong>known defect</strong>, which they found out about some time into the production. If it is so, it is very likely that Nikon had fixed the problem later on.</p> <p>And I'm not buying the "normal" electronic component deterioration, or however you want to call it. I have several "old" electronic devices with completely functioning LCD displays that have been on 24/7 for many, many years. But why go far? I have two F5 camera bodies, both of which were in heavy, professional use. One was manufactured in 1999, the other in 1996(!). To remind you, each has <em>three</em> separate LCD displays. In my case, they all work 100% to this day! That definitely tells you something about the quality of Nikon-branded LCDs.<br /> I'd say someone had screwed the pooch with the MF-28.<br /> If it was me and I knew there was a problem, I would try to fix it ASAP. And if my theory is correct, they probably had done just that. At any rate, it would make more sense to choose to buy a late-production MF-28 over an early-production unit.</p> <p>So, is there a chance of getting some info on them serial numbers, anyone?</p>

<p>Stephen:<br /> I think that the LCD is largely affected by how long the unit is in actual use. If, for majority of its life the MF-28 is stored in some cool, dry and dark place, with no batteries in it, then it is likely to be operational for many years to come.<br /> Given there is no way of getting a brand new (unused, unopened) MF-28 Data back, there's no telling how much hassle-free time is left on any particular MF-28 unit, when bought used. It may very well be at the end of its rope and the seller may even know it. However, if the MF-28 powers up right there and then but does not the very next day, technically, it becomes my problem..<br /> So, really, I'm just trying to establish if there is a way of actually testing the MF-28 on the spot, in a way that would give me any kind of indication whether the unit is approaching the end of its life. Or better still: Was the issue with the LCD addressed and mitigated later in the production? When was the MF-28 discontinued and what serial number range should I be interested in?<br /> Also, does Nikon still service this product? How much does it cost to replace the LCD?<br /> <br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> The MF-28 is very chunky. It would add considerable weight to the already hefty F5. Since all I really need is to enter the date and time into the "onboard computer", the MF-27 seems like an option I should definitely consider, if I knew for a fact that there is, indeed, communication between <em>its clock</em> and the camera's CPU. Can anyone confirm this? I would also need to know that the LCD on the MF-27 does not fade away in the same manner that it does on the MF-28.</p> <p>Thanks!</p>