Dieter Schaefer

<blockquote> <p>The economics can still favor film over digital. A full frame DSLR is relatively expensive.</p> </blockquote> <p>To stick with my above example - a trip with 80 slide films - current cost to purchase, develop and scan - about $20-25 a piece (price the last time I did this a year or so ago) - so the total is $1600 to $2000 - about the same as current FX DSLR cameras. Cost recovered after one trip! I actually don't have the money to keep shooting film!</p>

<p>Michael, differences in transmissivity were also my first guess - which is why I looked. The G does vignette slightly more than the D - (again by 1/10 of a stop) - so that could conceivably influence the measured exposure - this time in the correct direction. </p> <p>Maximum aperture is transmitted to the Df via the Ai follower tab - hence another possible explanation for the deviation could be a slight variation of the position of the tab depending on the lens mounted. In other words, the camera is being "lied" to about the maximum aperture of the lens and has to adjust the exposure accordingly. Not sure though whether the info from the chips would be used to correct those mechanically detected values.</p>

<p>DABDA - I am positively at the second "A" - acceptance that film is a thing of the past. Bye and good riddance - I am not missing you at all.</p> <p>Several infrastructural aspects might be mentioned - digital cards store a lot more images in a much smaller space than required byfilm. The same goes for archival hard drives compared to slide, negative, or print storage. The largest number of slide films I ever had to cope with on a single (6-week) trip was 80 - at total of 2880 images. Film and later the developed and framed slide took up an entire business case. Today, that many images can be stored in less than a square inch of space. Dual cards on most cameras allow even for redundancy while shooting - never an option with film.</p>

<p>@Michael - DxOmark shows a 1/10 difference in transmission - with the D version transmitting <strong>less - </strong>thus the observation should be exactly the opposite - faster speed on the G instead of - as observed - on the D.</p> <p>The difference is likely much less than the 1/3 of a stop indicated (the camera can't display on a finer grid) - quite likely that the exposure is about halfway between 1/500 and 1/640 - and with one lens, a slightly faster speed is selected - and displayed as the rounded-off 1/640, whereas the other selects a slightly longer one and the camera displays the rounded-off 1/500s.</p> <p>Would be interesting to see if the differences remained when the lenses were actually stopped down - and the aperture actually imparted some restriction in the optical path. At f/1.8, i.e. "fully open" the aperture in one lens might have a slightly different effect than in the other.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Assuming the 15mm is a fisheye (and hence of limited utility), then going full frame leaves you with a very limited selection of lenses that make full use of the D750 - a 50mm, 85mm, and a 100mm macro. Seems that with the D750, at least one if not two lenses would need to be purchased? Is that in the budget as well? If you were to make the move, are you planning on keeping the DX system or will you consider selling it (or giving it to your son)?</p>

<p>One lens I forgot to mention is the old 28-105/3.5-4.5 - quite a few people seem to like it a lot. I have used it only on a DX body but am tempted to pick up another copy to use on my D700.</p>

<blockquote> <p>What's it like wide open or maybe > f5.6 on a D700?</p> </blockquote> <p>In a word: bad. Center sharpness is OK but borders aren't. $180 definitely to high a price to pay. The subsequent variable aperture VR version is a bit better - but not much. f/8 is doable if one isn't too picky about the corners. Forget shooting either wide-open at any focal length.<br> Consider a AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5 (non-VR) - there are conflicting reports whether its better or not than the even older AF-D 24-85/2.8-4. <br> <br />Can you rent a more current lens rather than buying an old used one?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Ancient Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains near Big Pine</p> </blockquote> <p>Quite likely to be still closed in late April/early May.</p> <blockquote> <p>To get to Yosemite, you have to drive from Death Valley back down to Mojave, then to Bakersfield and then to Yosemite.</p> </blockquote> <p>If you are going to see Mono Lake, then another option is to continue north - the first pass that likely is going to be open is Kit Carson Pass (you could make a bee-line to see Lake Tahoe). From Lone Pine (where you arrive when crossing Death Valley), the trip north or south towards Yosemite are about equal in length - it's a very long day driving from Vegas in either case (12+ hours). Depending on the snow pack, all you might be able to visit is Yosemite Valley though - unless you cross-country ski to Glacier Point, for example. In all, going from Vegas to Yosemite that time of year involves a lot of driving. Definitely check which passes are open before leaving from Vegas.</p> <p>Given your 2 week timeline, I suggest to either go East or West, Death Valley and Valley of Fire can be made as day trips from Vegas. Then either West towards the Sierra or East (which I recommend). Zion, Bryce, (Capitol Reef), Arches, (Canyonlands), possibly Canyon de Chelly, Monument Valley, South Rim Grand Canyon (North Rim facilities definitely still closed), Lake Powell and back to Vegas. Doable in two weeks I think - about 1500 miles of driving (or about 24 hours).</p>

<blockquote> <p>Either use it for a year or two, and sell of the body before the new body comes out, so as to get as much money out of it to put back into the new body, or use it till it drops dead.</p> </blockquote> <p>I am somewhere in the middle as far as cameras are concerned - certainly not upgrading every model cycle but also not holding on to cameras until they die.<br> <br /> Saw no reason to hold on to my film cameras - with the exception of a 32-year old F3, they are all sold now. My first DSLR, D70, is sold, as are the subsequently acquired D200 bodies. Currently shooting with D300 and D700 - though a refurbished D7100 is on the way - to be used for avian and aviation photography. Generally sell equipment I don't intend to use anymore (or haven't used for a while) to upgrade to something newer or better. Probably would have sold off most of my DX gear if it wasn't for my wife transitioning into digital right now and wanting to use it. </p>

<p>Lower cost and more reach for the Sigma, but also higher weight and that 82mm filter (which is the biggest issue for me since all my filters are 77mm). My recommendation would be to rent both and then pick the one that you like better.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If you select 3D tracking, which I normally have, the point moves to show the current focus, which is probably what Kyle's expecting.</p> </blockquote> <p>I never use 3D tracking - it's way too slow for anything I do (which includes birds - so there you go Andrew). Heck, even 51 points is too slow; I either use 9 or 21 and try my best to keep the selected AF area "on target".</p> <blockquote> <p>That's good information Dieter, so I shouldn't expect the little focus square to follow my subject, but the camera will still keep moving subject in focus? Jus to clarify.</p> </blockquote> <p>Except when using 3D tracking (where according to Andrew, the AF area will change when tracking), that's correct.</p>

<blockquote> <p>see if the focus point tracks</p> </blockquote> <p>It appears that you expect to see the selected AF area in the viewfinder change when tracking motion - it won't (at least not in any Nikon I have ever used (D200, D300., D700). Depending on the settings, AF will take information from the surrounding 9, 21, or 51 areas into account when tracking, but it won't change the viewfinder display - you will still see the one that you selected initially.<br> <br /><br /></p>

<p>Set the self-timer and once started, the mirror flips up and the lens is stopped down at the beginning of the countdown. Once the picture is taken, the mirror returns to the viewing position. Not a permanent mirror lock-up but a temporary one.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I've just bought a 1913-1983 M4-P</p> </blockquote> <p>Is that the chrome 70th Anniversary edition of which 2500 were made? It appears to be from the "1913-1983" label. The M4-P had a 23,180 unit production run, of which only 500 were chrome (of course not counting the special editions). If indeed the case, then what I would do depends on what you paid for it. If within the normal M4-P price range, then I would NOT open it. If you already paid a premium, then the choice is harder - wait another 20 years and hope to make a profit or open it now and enjoy a piece of history? FWIW, I don't know if this special edition even has a premium price associated with it - I just assume that it does.<br /> <br /> Here's more info about that particular special edition as well as some matching meter, lenses etc. <a href="https://cameraquest.com/lmp70.htm">https://cameraquest.com/lmp70.htm</a></p> <p>From my limited experience with Leica rangefinders, I would not expect a camera that has sat unused for 30+ years to be functional but to need a CLA to be usable. Hence, leaving it in the bag puts the burden on a potential buyer - if you open it, then you may have to spend some money on it. Chances are, that the camera will remain sealed and never gets to be put to the use it was intended for. That is assuming that the intended use of a Leica is taking pictures and not be a collectors' item that sits out its time in a display case.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Maybe I am missing something, but have never understood why using an AF-on button is better than a half press of the shutter button to activate the AF system.</p> </blockquote> <p>I became a convert a few years ago and now use the AF-ON button exclusively - I would not consider purchasing a camera that doesn't have one or at least allows for a properly placed button to be re-programmed.</p> <p>The advantage to me is that I don't have to select between AF-C and AF-S by moving that particular selector on the camera (I still shoot with D300 and D700) - I get the desired behavior by having the camera always in AF-C and either keeping the AF-ON button pressed for continuous focus and tracking or by releasing the AF-ON button to stop focusing and maintain focus on a previously selected area. Best of two worlds! <br> Never had to use the AE-L/AF-L button and the times where I accidentally was in AF-S when I should have been using AF-C are over. Just need to remember to press that shutter button half-way to activate VR!</p> <p>Never got a hang of the focus/recompose method - which I consider a relic of the time when there were only three or five AF areas in the viewfinder - and sadly it becomes a necessity again with FX cameras. Got spoiled by 51 in the D300 that cover enough viewfinder area to always be able to select one to fall onto the area I wanted to focus on. On any FX camera, coverage is reduced and I find myself needing to focus and recompose more often.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Nikon has teased us with an add about an upcoming sports camera. This part is not rumor.</p> </blockquote> <p>Please provide a link to that teaser - the one on the well-known nikon rumor site (from August 11) certainly is not from Nikon (it says to right below it).</p>

<p>Not aware that Nikon has released anything about a D750. Where is the information that leads you to the conclusion that Nikon finally got it right?</p>

<blockquote> <p>I recently made the mistake of purchasing an off brand HN-2, but when I received it and saw how cheap it was, I quickly purchased the original.</p> </blockquote> <p>Did that with the hood for the two-ring AF-D 80-200/2.8 - purchased a cheap(er) imitation. Didn't fit properly when reversed and because of the difference in finish between hood and lens stood out like a sore thumb. Too bad that lens coats cost even more than the original hood ;-)<br> Once purchased one of these collapsible rubber lens hoods - worse than useless.<br> <br /> Never understood why Nikon didn't deliver lenses with two caps - one that fit the lens (and/or the hood when reversed) and another that fit the hood. Personally, I like to store my lenses with the hood in the shooting position - in particular since some are hard to mount on the camera when the lens hood is reversed (doesn't seem wise to try to mount a lens when all one can grab is the rather loosely attached hood).</p>

<p>HN-2 for 28/2.8 AiS and HS-8 for 105/2.5 (still have a cap that fits on the front of the hood - picked it up in the 80s from a grab bin in a photo store. Had the HK-3 on the 20/4 Ai too - before I sold the lens.<br> Why would I not use them?</p>

<p>Is there actually currently a camera that can even write at 160MB/s? Or is all that speed only available when transferring data to the computer - adequate reader and connections assumed?</p> <blockquote> <p>Not sure that's even the same playing field is it??</p> </blockquote> <p>Didn't realize that CF and CFast aren't compatible - appears CFast is geared towards movie cameras. Any reason CFast couldn't be used in a DSLR? Too power-hungry? Or just plain too fast to be useful?</p>

<p>CFast: 500+MB/s http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=CFast&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=</p> <p>XQD: dead on arrival</p> <p>SD: not exactly my favorite - too small and too fragile (though I haven't lost one or broken one yet)</p> <p>Would like to see CF/CFast only but am afraid that the future is SD - not the first time the better format looses out.</p>

<p>KEH EX is as low as I am willing to go. What you see is what you get - if it looks beat up, well, then it probably had had a rough life. Wouldn't mind if its just cosmetic on a lens - but with KEH BGN, glass could be affected too and that's not something I want to deal with.</p>

<p>Looks like the ones that do show were uploaded as 1500x995 with sizes of a few hundred KB at most. The ones that don't show have size 0x0 but show sizes of several megabyte. Can't recall what the upload limits are here at PN - but it could be that you tried to upload something too large.</p>

<p>Only you can decide whether saving $50 is worth the risk of Nikon USA refusing to repair the unit should it need service.</p>

<p>Considering the enormous number of equally graphic and disturbing images from other wars past that illustrate the horrors of war, I don't understand why this particular one deserves special mentioning. What does it illustrate that is not already known? Similar images that have been published widely don't seem to stick in people's minds long enough to condemn a war (or actually stop it) before it actually starts. Thus the question arises what purpose does publishing such a picture actually serve? </p>