Dieter Schaefer

<p>Several points come to mind. Firstly, when I started out three decades ago, one recommended set of lenses was indeed 21mm, 28mm, 50mm, 90mm. Another omitted the 50 and went 24mm, 35mm, 90mm. In both cases, 90 is not to be taken too literal - depending on the system it could have been 85, 90, 100, or 105. <br /> My initial set had been 35, 105, and 200 - and had I to do this over, I might replace the 35 with a 28. For many years, I did not have a 50 - and when I tried to make 50mm work for me, I had to finally realize that I can't.<br /> <br /> So, currently, for my A7, I have 21, 40/35, 90, and 180. The 40/35 came about because the Summicron 35 ASPH doesn't do well on the A7 whereas the 40mm Nokton does - and the 5mm difference is rather marginal. I can even imagine to do without the 40/35 altogether - though I might have to add a 28mm in that case. So, in essence, my current setup mimics rather closely the one you are musing about - instead of 75 and 135 - limits imposed by the rangefinder concept, I chose 90 and 180 though. On my Nikon FX, I am closer though: 35, 85, 150; there is no wider prime since I cover wide-to-ultrawide with a 16-35.</p> <p>My personal observation is that there are apparently two focal lengths that seem "odd" and hence not very popular: 28mm and 135. Both feel "in between" when considering the typical set of primes that were recommended. 28 is either "too wide" or "not wide enough" and 135 feels "too long" or "not long enough". If one starts with the 50, 28 should be natural but many still opt for 35 instead (which I agree is different from 50 and not meant to be a substitute). The next step then usually is a 24mm. Again, starting at 50, a 90 or thereabout is next, and then the 135 feels rather "too close" to the 90 and on opts for a 180 or 200 instead.</p> <p>On my M rangefinders (0.72 magnification viewfinder) I owned 35, 90 and 135. I wear glasses and with them the framelines for the 35 are already hard to see (and the 28mm aren't visible at all in a meaningful manner). 90 is already only a very small portion of the finder and the 135 needed goggles to allow at least some resemblance of framing an image (and to allow focusing). If I still used rangefinders, I could imagine making do with a 28 and a 75 - anything shorter or longer isn't a good fit on one anyway.</p>

<p>No, no, no - great photos are made with a Leica. All else is just poor imitations.</p>

<p>You are four months early for this to be an April's fools joke!<br> <br /> This has got to be either a joke (that I don't get) or spam?! </p> <p>If indeed serious, then this should be in the classifieds - I see no reason whatsoever for this to be posted in this forum.</p>

<p>Point 7 is the crux IMO too. And from the user point, an upgradeable camera would definitely be a plus. And I agree that Leica can't afford it! Technically, the rangefinder concept is outdated - but Leica apparently can't afford to move away from it for fear to lose the last its fans.</p>

<p>There's also the newer 12-28/4 and soon there will be (already announced) a 11-20/2.8.<br> I have the 11-16/2.8 (first version) and have briefly used the second version of the 12-24/4 - but never had a chance to compare them to the respective other versions. </p>

<p>To 1: that's going to get the discussion off to a good start - not!<br> To 2: fair to assume that Leica engineers are by now aware of this and investigating that angle<br> To 3: from what I've read, currently all replacements are free of charge - and those who have been charged will get reimbursed.<br> To 4: good one - but would leave those with the oldest M9 bodies no longer covered.<br> To 5: I don't think that's really an option - and haven't Leica fanboys already done enough damage to the company by insisting on old technology for far too long? Comparing the M rangefinder to the Fuji X100T hybrid finder leaves little doubt for me which one is the better option.<br> To 6: good luck on that one - why should Leica do that? </p>

<p>Raid - what do you expect from that direct dialogue? Someone will always find something amiss or debatable in whatever the Leica CEO would state in a public forum. Just look at all the heated debate on that particular issue - or on any post where Leica fan-boys, have-been-friends, and not-so-much-of-a-fan battle it out. Why would the Leica CEO want to get involved in that? Does he have anything to gain? Or just a lot to lose?</p> <p>In the l-forum, the first and second post by a Leica rep caused quite stir - and Leica quite quickly back-pedaled and is offering free sensor replacements now - or an upgrade path - dissing the earlier tiered pay-for-repair plan. The issue that apparently remains is that of the time if takes for the repair - and I doubt that Leica can do a lot about that. If indeed all the CCD cameras (save the M8) need a sensor replacement - then we are talking likely about some 60,000-70,000 cameras - quite a load to handle by the service department.</p>

<p>@Raid - do you really think that Leica would issue a statement like the one I linked to in my post above <strong>without</strong> the CEO knowing about it (or, in fact, approving of it)?</p>

<p>Didn't Leica offer free replacement of the affected sensors - or alternatively, an upgrade to the newer M camera: http://en.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leica-News/About-Leica-News/Global/Important-Information-Concerning-the-CCD-Sensors. Granted, they don't seem to have a technical solution to the sensor issue and can only replace with the sensors that may be affected again. And to many, "upgrading" to a CMOS sensor is not a solution or an option (there is no CMOS Monochrom, for example). </p> <p>What exactly is the CEO supposed to be doing in that rangefinderforum? I am fairly certain the he has a good idea on how bad the situation is and how much the issue is going to cost Leica - at least the monetary cost; the loss of confidence in the brand may not be as easily determinable. What solution is he supposed to be coming up with? It appears that using a different cover glass on the sensor might solve the issue - but is that more than mere speculation at this point?</p> <p>Seems to me that the adage "you get what you pay for" is lacking the occasionally applicable "or not".</p>

<p>The 55-200 VR is a DX lens and on the D700 in FX mode will vignette or in DX mode yield 5MP images.</p> <p>Between the 50 and the 85, I'd pick the later. For group shots, I consider the 50 not wide enough and would go for at least a 35 if not a 28. </p> <p>I owned the 80-200D - it's a good performer but nowadays I would want a lens with image stabilization. I also found the 80-200 to be front heavy and not to balance well with a D300 - the D700 might be better but I never had the lens on it.</p> <p>These are just opinions on the lenses you mentioned specifically. The best value/quality is a rather subjective and personal thing - with the caveat that one should pick focal lengths based on need not based on the perceived value/quality relationships (personally, I have no use for a 50mm lens at all - so no matter the value/quality - it's wasted money for my to own one). In particular since you mention wedding - but not if that's a singular occurrence or something you are planning on getting into. </p> <p>If singular - then I would rent the 24-70 and 70-200 VR II for the occasion - if you are planning on dong this professionally, then you need to buy those two lenses for sure. Plus - as Kent already pointed out - quite a bit more gear. </p>

<p>Not a DSLR but a FF mirrorless - get the Sony A7 II and with an adapter you are good to use all your manual focus Pentax lenses - with image stabilization. Add one or two Sony/Zeiss AF lenses to chase your kid and for your family shots.</p>

<blockquote> <p>It also confirms my belief in not jumping on the bandwagon of any new product until some luckless 'early adopters' have had the chance to Beta test it thoroughly.</p> </blockquote> <p>Good thing not everyone thinks that way - otherwise there would be no "early adopters". However, the same belief has been instilled into me since childhood - never buy the from the early batches of a new model's production run. With digital cameras, there is now even less of an incentive to buy early - given the rather steep depreciation in value and the rather fast model cycles. Though as the case of the Leica sensor corrosion shows, one can wait five years and still be SOL.</p> <p>As to the D750 issue - seems to me that the video showing that blocking the AF sensor with some black tape gets rid of the issue pretty much nails the cause of the flare as internal reflection - now it's up to Nikon to come up with a fix. There's also a video that shows that in the cameras affected, the AF sensor sits higher than it those that aren't. I think we can safely put the theory to rest that it's the lenses - it's the camera.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Honestly how many times do you use flair as an effect?</p> </blockquote> <p>flair - as often as I can<br> flare - avoid as much as possible</p>

<p>Adorama has refurbished D7100 for $700 - seems to me a better buy than a new D3300 for $500. Maybe your budget can be stretched that far?</p> <p><br />Compared to the D90, the D3300 will give your more MP (but do you really need them?). Probably does a bit better on high ISO too. You will be giving up the second command dial and a few other things. You don't say what you shoot and why the D90 falls short - but I doubt the D3300 is going to be the solution. Then again, the D7100 may not be either.</p>

<p>My experience with the 20/2.8D has not been positive - even on DX the corners are unacceptably soft at f/2.8 and f/4. The 24/2.8D performed no better at those apertures. Wide open the 16-85 (f/4 - f/4.5) performs better than the 20 and 24 stopped down to these apertures. What's the point of carrying those f/2.8 primes if they can't perform wide open or stopped down one stop? They are a waste of money on DX (and FX as well). I rather get the Tokina 12-28/4 than any of those AF-D primes that you mention.</p> <p>The new 20/1.8G AF-S might be an option - but it costs as much as the Sigma 18-35/1.8 but weighs only about half. Considering that the 18-35 replaces the 20 and the 35 and gives the versatility of a zoom, I would rather carry the additional weight than dealing with constant lens changes. YMMV.</p>

<p>I would consider the Nikon 16-85/3.5-5.6 VR or Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS "C" (the latest iteration) and possibly the Nikon 70-200/4.</p>

<p>Or simply calling it "processing" would not suffice? The "post" seems unnecessary since there hasn't been any processing prior.<br> Same with the good old term of pre-visualization. What makes it pre? How does the actual act of visualizing the image in my mind differ from the pre-visualization stage? Once I "pre-visualized" did I not already visualize?</p>

<p>Having recently purchased a refurb D7100 - too early, as it turns out as the price has dropped another $165 since then - and with that purchase resigning to the disappointing fact that a "true" D300 successor won't be coming I cannot commiserate with the OP about the lack of a D7200. </p> <p>IF - big IF - the rumored specs about the D7200 are true, then it will be a minor upgrade of the D7100 - even if it would do away with one of my issues with the D7100 - the too shallow buffer. Another is the lack of a dedicated AF-ON button - though I can make do with re-purposing the AE-L/AF-L button for which I have never had any use anyway. A third is the lack of the mode button; the mode dial is on the wrong side of the camera - plain and simple. The D7200 would seem to be just the camera the D7100 should have been - quite similar to the D750 being the one the D600 should have been from the onset. But why sell the consumer one camera if one can try to sell them two in succession?</p> <p>These incremental updates and the intentional crippling of features is not the policy I like to see Nikon following - and I can imagine that it may cost them in the future. My update path so far has been D70 to D200 to D300 - from where it diverged into a D700 and D7100. For the time being, I am not planning any new camera purchase - short of replacing one that has failed and turns out to be non-repairable economically. And even then it's quite unlikely that I will go for a new one - given their rapid depreciation and marginal improvements over an older generation used or refurbished one. </p> <p>I also handled a 7D MkII in the store and liked the way if felt - though the totally different control layout would trip me up for quite some time I suppose. Together with the new 100-400, I'd have a combo that at least on paper looks better than the D7100 with 80-400 - though I don't know if those differences will be all that relevant in the field. Never used the 8fps the D300 is capable of - so the 10 fps of the 7D MKII don't have as much appeal to me as they might have for others. </p>

<p>On the protrusion that says O <- ->L there should be a metal pin - push it in to unlock then turn adapter towards the O about 45 degrees, maybe a little more. May have to gently pull to get the adapter off then.</p>

<p>Amazon Deal: D7000 body for $484 & free shipping (previously $525)</p>

<p>Neither - go for the F100.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Isn't the Nikon D7100 a full frame camera?</p> </blockquote> <p>Nope, it's a DX camera with an APS-C-sized sensor (24mm x 16mm) - not FX (24 x 36mm). Hence me alerting you to the crop factor in my post above.</p> <p>Current FX models are the D610, D750, and D810 - and the pro-model D4S. As well as the retro-styled Df. Quite likely the D610 will be discontinued soon - hence the rather deep discount available currently available (the body only price is just shy of $1500).</p>

<p>That color certainly will draw attention ;-)<br> Front will likely not fit many lenses - at least not any that are larger than the 50/1.8G.<br> Never seen an image of the case from another angle than the one shown here. Does the bottom allow access to the battery and card without removing the case? Is there a hole, a flap, or what? And how does it attach - screwed into the tripod mount so that one can't even set the camera down because of that protruding screw. How does it look from the back - what does/doesn't it cover. And the left side of the camera - does it cover the connectors? </p> <p>I have seen quite a few different half cases for the Df - and they always shows views from all angles - only Nikon seems to think that one view is sufficient to sell a $250 case.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>" As a rule of thumb, since digital cameras are merely high-tech electronic gadgets that get out of date and depreciate quickly, you are better off getting just enough camera to meet your current needs and invest any left over budget in lenses."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Sums up very nicely why I plan on sticking it out a while longer with the D700 ;-) </p>

<p>Two days late and a dollar short: http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00d08B?unified_p=1</p>