david_r._edan

<p>Didn't want to go off topic but it looks like I have to clarify a few things.</p> <p>I own several digital cameras, including DSLRs, the most advanced of which is the Nikon D800.<br> <br />However, I need to use <strong>film</strong> for a specific project, which is not up for discussion.<br> <br />I have to have the accurate date and time for each of the exposures in the metadata.</p> <p>The only way to record that information is by installing and setting up an appropriate data back, the MF-28 or, maybe, the MF-27 (I don't know).</p> <p>Evidently there are <strong>major</strong> issues with the MF-28.</p> <p>What should I do about it?</p> <p>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> And BTW: This is how you access the metadata on the Nikon F5 in the year 2016:<br> www.meta35.com/<br />www.youtube.com/watch?v=Janj7wKw2EQ</p>

<p>Hey.</p> <p>So, I've been thinking about shooting a project with my F5 that's just been sitting in my closet for years. Right now I don't have any time for it but I like to plan ahead.</p> <p>Basically what I need is the ability to record the date and time in the metadata. And the only way to tell the F5 what date and time it is, is via a multi-function back such as the MF-28.</p> <p>I did some poking around and came across this post from quite a while back:<br /> http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Sku9<br /> <br />The last poster, who was (very) late to the party, pretty much establishes the very same problem as being something extremely common, at least in my view.<br /> I've reviewed the manual, to which a link was kindly provided in the same thread, and came across something very interesting, right there on the first page:</p> <p>"NOTE: After five to six years of normal use, however, LCD's contrast may deteriorate and display information may begin to fade. Should this occur, contact an authorized Nikon dealer or service facility to have the display replaced at a nominal charge."<br /> How could they all have missed it? Or was that added later?<br /><br /> Is this for real? I mean, am I pretty much guaranteed to have to deal with this B.S. if I do decide to get this back? What are your thoughts on this and what are my options?<br /><br /> And another thing. Being able to imprint the date and time in between the frames is kind of cool but I don't really need it. The only other function with this back that would be useful to me is the ability of entering custom text for each of the exposures. That text can be recorded in the metadata, very much in the manner that the "Image Comment" behaves in my D800 (for example). There is, of course, other added functionality with this back, which would be nice to have, however, it is largely irrelevant, at least to my <em>current</em> situation.<br /><br /> My first choice is obviously the MF-28 but how about the MF-27? What I really need is the date and time. Does the MF-27 actually relay the information to the camera or is this back strictly for imprinting the date/time onto the film?<br /><br /> So.. What's the deal with the MF-28 and can I use the MF-27 instead, or does it also suffer from the same problem with its tiny LCD?<br /><br /> And by the way, what is the current "nominal charge" for replacing the LCD on the MF-28?<br /><br /> Thanks!</p>

<p>I'm completely with you there. The current camera bodies (Nikon, Canon and others) have the capacity of being so much more advanced than they are, the way they sit. It's all in the software. I wish that the manufacturers would stop the crypto B.S. and let serious developers write proper software, for whom it would be a full-time job and not just one more thing they had to do in order to be able to sell their cameras.<br> I would pay real money for a good "operating system" for my Nikon D800.</p>

<p>My 2 cents.<br /> I've tried taking the "Menu Bank" route but that approach failed me very quickly. The thing is that I kept changing my camera's settings all the time. And in most cases I wanted those changes to be "global", meaning that I had to go to each one of the memory banks and apply the same changes. I just couldn't keep up with it. It was a nightmare, a real cluster****. I do realize that in some scenarios having several sets of constant settings is beneficial but I just couldn't conform to the way it had to be operated.<br /> Luckily, the custom menu on my D800 turned out to be a godsend! First of all, getting to it is a breeze and you don't even have to dedicate a button to it. I have the DOF preview button assigned to "Access top item in MY MENU" but that 'top item' happens to be the Virtual Horizon which I had to assign one of the buttons to anyway. So, I have the Virtual Horizon on demand, one press of a button away. In order to get to My Menu from there, I just have to press the multi-selector: center, left, right, either one works.<br /> The custom menu itself I've organized in a form of a checklist. Before every shoot I pull it up in the manner described above. Then I quickly go over the items. The items are laid out in the order that I want them to be, in the way that makes sense to me. Most of the time I don't have to change anything but when I do it's not more than 2 or 3 different settings. I guess that is why this method works for me. Having to change this way 8 or 9 settings every time would be a real pain in the rear. Luckily, in my scenario that is never the case and the beauty of it is that most of the actual settings are displayed right next to the items, so there's no need to invoke any of them unless I want something changed.<br /> I've divided my custom items into 2 separate categories. One fits on the first page and it contains items that I need to access most frequently. The rest is on the second page.<br /> 14 items total are enough for me but it's quite possible to have more than that (I don't know the actual limit).<br /> There's lots that I'm not happy with about my D800 camera, however, this thing worked out great for me. Wouldn't have it any other way (but that's just me).</p> <p>Anyway, there are lots of photographers (pros and hobbyist) who have in their arsenal both Nikon and Canon equipment. Nobody has to "switch". And getting stuff from Canon is not like having to buy everything again. Plenty of it is "cross-platform". Things like bags, tripods, pro studio lighting and props, filters, memory cards/readers, computers, software, printers, darkroom equipment, film and flatbed scanners, etc..<br /> What I'm saying is that switching over to a different camera system is not like starting from zero. But if it was me, I'd just buy one Canon body, a Nikkor to Canon lens adapter and a couple of Canon lenses that I knew I otherwise couldn't live without. Luckily, Canon has plenty of camera bodies to choose from and the used ones are more common than Nikon's.<br /> At any rate, it wouldn't be like "selling everything" and then having to buy it all from scratch.<br /> Whatever you do, you can't go wrong with your decision, as long as you're switching for the right reasons (if that is, indeed, your choice).</p>

<p>How do I do that?</p>

<p>Tried it and: NOPE!. It still won't let me post any links to the-digital-picture in the Nikon forum.</p>

<p>Dammit! Then what the hell was wrong with the other post? Gonna try it again.</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/whateverblah</p> <p>let's see if this one works:<br> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=621&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=4&LensComp=957&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6</p>

<p>No, man... it wasn't like that. It was like this huge URL that didn't even fit on a single line. In the preview it was converted into a hyperlink that said "link"</p>

<p>Hi. I was gonna start a new thread in one of the other forums. The inquiry had 2 links to the-digital-picture. This is what I got when I tried to post it.<br> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p> <h2>Problem with Your Input</h2> We had a problem processing your entry: Please do not post any links to the-digital-picture.com. <p>|||</p> Why is that? Is it a rivalry thing or is it because the data presented there is unreliable? <center> <a href="http://adserver.adtechus.com/?adlink%7C5215%7C870625%7C0%7C225%7CAdId=-3;BnId=0;itime=85873180;" target="_blank"><img src="http://aka-cdn-ns.adtechus.com/images/AT225_728x90_5.gif" alt="AdTech Ad" width="728" height="90" border="0" /></a> </center>

<p>I finally did manage to find a few on ebay. I thought I'd be able to get half a bucket of those lens caps for under 5 bucks but the asking prices turned out to be stupid high. Originally I wanted to get one cap for every lens that I own and modify them all so that they would stay in place better, because 'as is' those cheap plastic covers do tend to fall off. Now, because of the ridiculous price tag I'm rethinking this whole situation.<br /> But seriously, there is no alternative to the standard bayonet-style design? Wouldn't it be great to do away with the twisting?<br /> 1. Hold the lens cap by the 2 springy pieces of plastic.<br /> 2. Gently squeeze them.<br /> 3. Place the cap over the rear of the lens.<br /> 4. Let go of the lens cap.<br /> 5. You're done.<br /> <br />*Just like the front lens cap. One-hand operation, on and off.<br /> Frankly, I'd be happy with just a simple snap-on/place-over design that stays in place even marginally better than the cheap, white "lens cover" I got with my 50/1.8D.</p> <p>I know this is a long shot, so whatevs....<br /> But hey, if someone hasn't told me yet how much they love their standard Nikon twist-on lens caps - go right ahead!</p>

<p>Back in the day, when I bought the cheapo Nikkor 50/1.8D, it came with a simple snap-on rear lens cap. It was made from white translucent plastic and it would simply snap on, no alignment and twisting necessary.<br> Where can I buy a bunch of these lens caps? If something even better exists I'd love to hear about it. And by "better" I mean no alignment, one-hand operation (on and off). *I already did some poking around, so I seriously doubt there's anything.<br> I trust the people here to stay on topic. I'm not interested in anyone telling me how happy they are with their standard rear lens caps.<br> Thanks.</p>

<p>Tim: That's what I meant by 'modular', that I wouldn't need to assemble (or even carry with me) the whole contraption, if I wanted to do just a quick single-row pano. The custom kit that I had in mind is very similar to the M2. The option of using just the nodal slide (for single-row) is one of the requirements. I wouldn't need the rotator though. I always advance the rotation manually, looking through the viewfinder. The frame overlap often gets very uneven throughout my panoramas on purpose. I do strictly manual stitching and I need to have a decent amount of solid features in each frame that I'll be able to use as control points. Often there happens to be nothing but the sky, sea or distant and featureless mountain ridges. So I may decide to 'cut' that segment differently. Or for example, if there's a moving object, such as a ship at sea, I may decide to give a couple of frames much more overlap than normal, to include that moving object in its entirety in one of the frames, as opposed to cutting it in half. That is why I wouldn't use a fancy rotator, even if I was given one for free. I'm perfectly fine with the rotator that comes with the p0 ballhead. Though I will buy the version of the ballhead that comes w/o the clamp and get a different one.</p>

<p>Thank you for your input, Ellis, but like I said before, my requirements are unique to my situation. I do realize the advantages of a rig based on the RRS PG-02, however, there is no place for something like that in my current setup. And money has nothing to do with it.<br /> <br />And, Edward, I've stated that my system has to be 'modular'. There's not much point but I'll share this one with you. After all, this is a forum.<br /> One of the requirements is that my panorama kit has to have the ability of stripping down to just a (fully-functional) tripod head. The AS P1 is not much more than a fancy leveling base because it cannot be tilted 90 degrees to the side, as opposed to the P0. I'm doing away completely with an L-bracket, so I would need that kind of tilting ability for shooting regular verticals (not panoramas). <br /> The upside-down design of the p0 ballhead is the right-side-up, the way I see it, the way all ballheads should be made. Unfortunately, in reality 99% of ballheads are 'too exposed'. They act as dust traps. In my case, the 'dust' would be mostly sand as I'll be working prominently in various kinds of sandy environments. Think places like Saudi Arabia... Yeah... So, imagine what kind of havoc sand would wreak on a Teflon-coated surface. I figured I'd be much better off with something like the p0. Plus it seems to be a sterling ballhead in every other respect.<br /> I'll have to add a little mod to it (the rotator) and also get to enjoy it as a panoramic head, a function it was not designed to perform, at least not in the way I need it to.</p> <p>Thanks to all for the advice.</p>

<p>Edward:<br /> For what it's worth, the Arca-Swiss p0 is a "pro" ballhead even though there is no rotation at the base. What's right for me may not be right for you. Arguing something like that would be pointless.<br /> At first I did get an impression that leveling bases, in general, offered rotation too but now I see that this one is simply an exception:<br /> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1017837-REG/sunwayfoto_dyh90ri_dyh_90ri_rotating_leveling_base.html<br /> <br />Doesn't matter. I've found what I was looking for.</p>

<p>Found it:<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/848913-REG/FEISOL_PB_70_PB_70_Panning_Base.html<br> <br />Almost everything about this rotator is right. What I don't like is the fact that apart from the 3/8 screw there are no additional points to secure my tripod head to the base. Plus the surface that would be in contact with the base of the tripod does not appear to offer much friction, which doesn't help... Oh well.. That's what Blue Loctite is for.</p>

<p>Stephen and Edward:<br> <br />I couldn't find anything suitable from RRS, or maybe I missed it.<br> Anyway, there are many types of panoramas and even more ways of capturing them. I'm not new to it, by any means. I know the type of panos that I shoot, the equipment and techniques that I employ. So what I'm trying to achieve is assemble, piece by piece (from different manufacturers) a modular panorama kit that is tailored to my specific needs, while shaving down every ounce that I can. And by "modular" I mean that I want to have the option/freedom of leaving parts of the kit behind, instead of having to lug the whole cluster**** around, at all times.<br> Luckily there's the Arca-Swiss standard and, consequently, a multitude of options. None of it should concern anyone except me as, again, the kit that I'm trying to assemble is being tailored to my specific requirements and personal preferences.<br> <br />That was the big picture. The small picture is that right now I'm looking for a way of giving the Arca Swiss p0 ballhead the ability of rotating along the X axis, independently of the ballhead's tilt angle.<br> I am not interested in any 'premade' "pano heads" from RRS or any other make.</p>

<p>Sandy:<br /> Yeah, in principal, this thing is what I'm looking for, though by design, that's not it.<br /> <br />The top screw is a 1/4 and it's meant to be connected directly to the bottom of the camera. In my case, that tiny screw would have to accommodate a hefty tripod head (with a 3/8 hole) plus a whole bunch of other stuff that has to go on top. I don't think that the Nikon AP 2 would be up to the task. I need something similar but much sturdier. Obviously, the top screw has to be a 3/8".<br /> I'm open to suggestions of modifying a suitable leveling base, or any other gizmo, for that matter. I'm sure there's something. It goes without saying that the end product would have to be very sturdy and reliable.<br /> <br />Thanks anyway.</p>

<p>Hi. I'm trying to put together a new panorama rig/kit from scratch. I had everything figured out but then I hit a brick wall. I've come to realize that the tripod head which I had my heart set on does not have panning. Here it is:<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=arca+swiss+p0&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=<br> Sure, the clamp offers some nice rotation, however, this 'rotation' can be considered as 'panning' ONLY when it's level. Let me explain. There's a good reason why I called my panorama rig a 'kit'. I need it to be extremely versatile, letting me use only parts of it, depending on the task at hand. That is the reason I've singled out the p0 ballhead. It can function as an exceptional leveling base AND double as a full-fledged, heavy-duty tripod ballhead.<br> There will be cases where I decide that instead of having to put the whole clumsy monstrosity together, I can get away with doing just a single-row panorama with a collared lens, such as the Nikkor 70-200/4 or the 300/4.<br> I can mount a lens like that on the p0 ballhead directly and have the camera (D800) in the horizontal or vertical orientation. This setup would work in many cases, except that I can't use the rotation on the clamp for panning, unless the horizon happens to be in the middle of the composition. <br> It is obvious that I need to add a rotator that goes between the tripod and the p0 ballhead.<br> What I was able to find are these:<br> http://shop.nodalninja.com/collections/rotators<br> It seems that what I'm looking for are the ones listed at the bottom. However, it appears that there isn't any way of locking the rotation and there are "stops" that I absolutely do not need. I couldn't find any demonstration of the product, so I had to ask here.<br> I need something very simple, yet extremely tough. Something that I can trust to hold the p0 ballead, a full panorama rig and my Nikon D800+grip with the 70-200/4 lens. Obviously, it does not have to come from Nodal Ninja and I do need to be able to lock the rotation.<br> *I'm not interesting in leveling bases, unless there's one that I can cannibalize and use only the part responsible for rotation.</p>

<p>Didn't notice the other posts...<br> Thank you, Richard and Tom. What you say is very reassuring. Actually I think I've solved my own dilemma. Read my previous post to get what I consider to be a pretty neat pointer on the Gel Stick usage.</p>

<p>Edward: Blowing the dust off prior to making any type of hard contact is cleaning your sensor 101. I've been using the sensor swabs and the eclipse fluid since 2006-2007, so I know the drill.<br /> Not all abrasive dust is dry. A lot of it will keep on clinging even if you can somehow get an actual hurricane to help you with your cleaning. And technically speaking, most solid particles are abrasive to some extent. Given my previous experience with wet cleaning I am really reluctant to use it on my D800, which has never been cleaned (except for air).<br /> We're getting off the topic I realize that people are trying to help but my original inquiry was about the Gel Stick.<br /> My current situation is "visible dust" on the sensor. In one spot there is something that looks like some sort of fiber. I have no reason to believe that I have any type of oil or saliva or any of those things on my sensor. I will order the Gel Stick and try to pick up with it whatever I can. If I should ever require wet cleaning I can always try Sensor Swabs (again).<br /> I've found a video on Youtube and it gave me a great idea.<br /> Prior to a cleaning session with the Gel Stick, I can test it first on a clean piece of glass, such as a UV or an ND filter. I will press the gel against the glass a couple of times and inspect the glass for residue in good lighting conditions. Any (new) smudges would be clearly visible, prompting me not to use the Gel Stick on the sensor.<br /> Dilemma solved.</p>

<p>If it was as simple as blowing some air on the sensor, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I have a few stubborn specks near the center of the frame. They are determined to 'stick around'. Obviously I need to make hard contact.<br> As per the wet cleaning. Well, I guess I wasn't specific enough. I've been using them SensorSwabs and the Eclipse solution for many years with mixed results. I still have plenty of Eclipse left, however, I would need to buy new swabs, since the ones that I have are in the crop-sensor variety.<br> To all who are happy with this solution: Have a good look at your sensor. Make a test shot and REALLY boost the contrast. Chances are you'll be able to see smears that go in the horizontal direction, especially around the edges of the frame. And do you people really think that pressing down on abrasive particles and dragging them across the OLPF is a good idea?<br> <br />I would like to stay on topic here. Deiter, watching that video is somewhat reassuring.<br> Obviously, I would like to get additional feedback on the Sensor Gel Stick.</p>

<p>Hey.<br> Couldn't find a forum that's specific to sensor cleaning, so, sorry if there is one.<br> Can anyone attest to the purported effectiveness of this "Sensor Gel Stick"?<br> I myself have no doubt that this gizmo is quite capable at picking up most of the debris. However, my main concern is its inherent "stickiness". I'm quite skeptical that upon contact, the sticky material does not leave any residue, especially around the edges (of the gel).<br> I've had a few mixed-to-bad experiences with sensor swabs (on crop sensors), as the procedure would always leave some residue and possibly minor scuffing close to and parallel to the horizontal edges. I could observe those defects only in test photos, after applying a strong boost of contrast but the pictures spoke for themselves.<br> The Internet is filled with testimonies and sample photos from all kinds of happy-go-lucky types, who vouch for the Sensor Gel Stick. But do those people even know how to properly analyze their sensors? Basically, all I've seen was before and after photos of the sky... at the normal contrast.... That doesn't tell <em>me</em> much.<br> There are also plenty of horror stories. But I believe that those stem largely from product incompatibility or the fact that the market is flooded with cheap rip-offs of this "gel stick".<br> Honestly, before shelling out close to 60 bucks on a plastic stick and possibly putting my OLPF at risk, I would really need a few honest opinions from people who have used this "cleaning product" on their Nikon cameras.<br> I'm interested in hearing the testimonies of genuine pixel-peepers, such as myself. My main concerns with this product are the possibility of abrasion and residue being left on the OLPF.<br> Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Thank you, Pete. Since I already bought 2 units, I'll be able to confirm your statement which is basically my assumption too, at this point.<br> *In the manual (Sekonic) they list a frequency range which is in the megahertz.</p>

<p>wow, man! That's some great info!<br> The transmitter in the Sekonic meter is PocketWizard-compatible. So it boils down to whether YongNuo is compatible with PocketWizard. If it is and if I can get everything working on the same channel, it should work.<br> At any rate, taping a YongNuo to the meter is an awesome idea! (plus I already have a hotshoe-to-PC adapter)<br> The fact that the unit has to sit in the camera's hot shoe is not a deal breaker. And if I understand correctly, one possibility to work around it would be to connect the transceiver to a hotshoe-to-PC adapter and then run a short PC cable to the PC port on the camera.<br> I'm gonna order me a couple of them YongNuo's right now. And later add 1 or 2 to the setup.<br> Thanx!</p>