Dieter Schaefer

<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>

<p>Looking at the comparometer images, the first thing that strikes me is the difference in overall tint - more magenta for the D3300 and more greenish-yellow for the D7100 (see the same on dpreview). Secondly, while at ISO 100, the two JPEGs are of similar size (as expected), the higher the ISO the bigger the D7100 become in comparison - for example, at ISO 12800, the D7100 is almost 5MB larger than the D3300 file. Makes me wonder what's going on inside the camera here - but then the D7100 doesn't have an AA filter whereas the D3300 does. The RAW files on dpreview show the same trend - if I am not mistaken, then the D3300 can only save compressed though. Thirdly - looking closely, I can't detect any meaningful difference.</p>

<p>Check which version of ACR you have (in CS6: Help --> About Plug-In --> Camera Raw; you need 8.6 to process D810 files. If you have an older version, then you need to update. For the time being (i.e. as long as adobe still sells CS6), new cameras will be supported in ACR (but the CS6 ACR won't get the new feature that the CC subscription version of it gets). ACR 8.6 is available here: http://blogs.adobe.com/crawlspace/2011/03/keeping-photoshop-up-to-date.html (just in case the "download manager" (or whatever is currently needed on one's computer to get updates) doesn't function properly).</p>

<p>Monkey business</p>

<p>OK, cheaper then: 14/2.5 and 45/1.8</p>

<p>I would consider manual focus - Voigtlander 17.5/0.95 and 42.5/0.95.<br> Or I would consider the Olympus 12/2 and 17/1.8, Leica 42.5/1.2, and Olympus 75/1.8.</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote> <p>17-55 f2.8, 35 f2 or 35 1.8 DX lens</p> </blockquote> <p>Scratch those and get the Sigma 18-35/1.8 instead - unless size matters (really shouldn't given your choice of bodies).</p> <blockquote> <p>18-200 f3.5-5.6,</p> </blockquote> <p>professional grade camera bodies and a crappy lens - why? Should do OK on that 4MP D2Hs though.</p> <blockquote> <p>70-200 f2.8 VR the first one, 1.4 tele-converter</p> </blockquote> <p>Don't work all that well together. </p> <blockquote> <p>and I'm not sure a 12-24 f4</p> </blockquote> <p>Nothing wrong with that one if purchased used. Given your other lenses, I'd go for the Tokina 11-16/2.8 instead though.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Our local camera store just moved - and took that move to abandon the E-6 processing for the same reason already mentioned - not enough demand to justify running high-cost, high-maintenance processing. I preferred Kodachrome and can't even recall when I shot my last roll of E-6 film, what was on it and what camera I used for it. Now it appears that my wife also gave up on using film. Maybe it's time to move her F100 out of the bag and into the display cupboard to join my F3 ;-) Probably should throw out the last film from the freezer as well - they are all way past their expiration dates anyway.</p>

<blockquote> <p>that phenomenon is often called a Sun Dog</p> </blockquote> <p>Lex, the 22° halo and sun dogs often appear together; the halo is created by randomly oriented ice crystals, the sun dogs result from crystals that are vertically aligned, resulting in a horizontal refraction. Thus, sun dogs (also called mock suns) are bright spots that appear on either side of the sun and always at the same elevation and at the same angular distance as the 22° halo - I couldn't see them on this halo though. <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/%20http:/hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/halo22.html">http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/halo22.html</a></p> <blockquote> <p>an atmospheric effect I've never witnessed or heard of before</p> </blockquote> <p>Wikipedia claims it can be witnessed 100 days per year - but I can't recall having seen such a halo before.</p>

<p>Believe this is called a 22° halo; it forms as sunlight is refracted in millions of randomly oriented hexagonal ice crystals suspended in the atmosphere.<br> 7-image HDR - +/- 3EV appeared necessary to retain detail both in the highlights and the shadows (doubt that even a D810 at ISO 64 would get away with less than +/-2?) processed to keep things natural.<br /></p><div></div>

<p>Email I received 6 days ago says 50% off is for one week only: CaptureOne 7 Express $49 and CaptureOne 7 Pro $149 (current prices from CaptureOne Store website).</p>