Dieter Schaefer

<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>

<blockquote> <p>I use the D7000 and D7100 extensively. If anything, IMO those DSLRs are a bit too small for comfortable holding.</p> </blockquote> <p>IMO, on the D7000 it's the poor grip design (the Df is more comfortable to hold and that says a lot); the D7100 is better. I handled the E-M5 and due to the lack of a proper grip, it is definitely not for me. What surprised me though is how well the NEX 6 fit my hand (the button arrangement is a different story) - it's not necessarily the size of the camera, but the size and shape of the grip. Also, the smaller the camera, the shorter the lens one can comfortably use without changing the way one holds and carries the combo - I prefer to do so by the grip while supporting the lens from below when shooting. When the lens reaches a certain length (and/or weight) that's no longer possible and one has to hold the combo by the lens.</p> <p>This shows a size comparison between a D60 with 35/1.8DX and a NEX 6 with Leica NEX 6 - I can handle both equally well: Here a comparison of the same cameras with 85/1.8G and Leica 90/2: I could post similar comparisons between a A7 and a D700 - it would be even less in favor of the DSLR.<br> This is a combo that I can no longer handle by the NEX grip but needs to be held by the lens: Tokina 11-16/2.8: - I don't have an issue handling it by the grip when mounted on a DSLR.</p> <blockquote> <p>Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Sigma 18-35/1.8 ... both are reasonably hefty zooms, not smallish primes</p> </blockquote> <p>No argument here - though strictly only valid if one would not carry more than two or maybe three primes instead - otherwise bulk and weight will quickly equalize. Naturally, a small prime on a small body still has the advantage of not being as obvious as a bulky zoom. Then again, changing lenses frequently has its drawbacks too.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'm not sure if it's even compatible with AF lenses</p> </blockquote> <p>It is, as long as they have an aperture ring - which I believe all of them do. </p>

<blockquote> <p>does that help?</p> </blockquote> <p>For me your first post reads as if he was shooting in the UK - sorry, probably just my poor understanding of the English language.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Did you take the filter apart, separate the two pieces and clean the internal surfaces facing each other?</p> </blockquote> <p>Is that really a good idea? I thought that CPL filters have the polarizing medium laminated between the two glass surfaces and that taking them apart and cleaning the interior surfaces seems like a sure way to destroy the filter.</p>

<p>I had issues with a few of the cheaper adapters - one lens did fit, another didn't. Or the locking pin was to weak. Or difficulty to get a lens on or off. In other words, poor workmanship and playing a tad loose with the tolerances. Ended up with a Voigtlander adapter that seems to be doing fine.</p>

<p>Agree with Wouter and Andrew - tripod and ball head are marginal for that lens (I wouldn't even consider the 055 to be sufficient) - but also confused why distance would play a role. So more likely an AF issue - try manual focus and LV focus as suggested above.</p>

<blockquote> <p>In a country with weather as unpredictable as the UK</p> </blockquote> <p>He was shooting in Lebanon...</p>

<p>Andrew - the 14-24 isn't a prime lens and hence shouldn't be in that list of yours. I, for one, would never buy that lens because of the bulbous front element. Not because of the filter issue but because I know from my 10.5 fisheye what a pain it is to keep that front element reasonably clean. Also, you can't list Sigma lenses as alternatives when the discussion is about what Nikon did or didn't do.</p> <p>Naturally, AF-S primes will be larger than the current AF-D ones and below 24mm, I don't expect that whether the lens is DX or FX makes much of a difference in size. Frankly, the only DX prime I would have liked to see is a 24/2 - which I expect would be a lot less bulky than Sigma's 18-35. As already stated, I don't care anymore if Nikon brings out any DX prime - if I wanted fast in DX, then with the Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Sigma 18-35/1.8 I would have everything I needed.</p> <p>You are right though that there are a few large aperture (and hugely expensive) AF-S "updates" to AF-D primes - and maybe that is all we are going to get (since some new zooms are as fast as those old primes and optically better). Considering the $2k+ 24/1.4 as a substitute for a 24/2 (FX or DX) is the same kind of thinking that suggests a D4 instead of a D7100 - for some people these are simply not valid and reasonable alternatives.</p> <p>Currently, Nikon doesn't offer me a small(ish) 20mm AF-S lens - and frankly, the 20/2.8 is a dog when shot wide open or even at f/4 (I owned one and recently go rid of it; it wasn't even good on DX).</p> <blockquote> <p>I really don't understand the complaint about weight with regards to Nikon FX</p> </blockquote> <p>To me it is more about bulk than weight - the lenses I use on my A7 are metal and I am not saving much in terms of weight - but the difference in bulk is substantial. I can fit the A7, 21/1.8, 35/2, and 90/2 in the same space that holds a D700 with either a 35/1.4 or 85/1.8 attached. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I would have thought that it was a case of the “smearing” some wide M lenses have on the A7</p> </blockquote> <p>Doesn't look like it. My Leica 35/2 shows "smearing" but it is fairly symmetrical in all corners. Adapters have issues with holding lenses properly parallel to the sensor - but yours is a pretty severe case. Does the lens and/or adapter have any play when gently pulling on it or pushing them sideways? A little bit of rotational play is normal.<br> Could be a decentered lens, a problem with the adapter, or an issue with the camera mount, or a combination of those. Unless you can narrow it down by using another lens, adapter, camera, you aren't going to find out. Would definitely tighten that adapter screw and see if it changes things - but in a general sense, there isn't anything to adjust on any adapter I know of. <br> The reason you see it more clearly at close focus distance and wide open is the narrow DOF in these cases - stopping down and subject further away increases DOF and masks whatever issue you are having.</p>

<blockquote> <p>splitting themselves between several mounts and sensor sizes</p> </blockquote> <p>That's a big issue with Sony - their A-mount lenses can be adapted to the A7 line - but it's not elegant. It almost looks like Sony created a scenario quite similar to Olympus with the 4/3 to m4/3 transition - they have two mounts and two different formats requiring no less than four different lens systems; something will have to give eventually if the entire thing isn't going to come crashing down like a house of cards.</p> <blockquote> <p>generated more momentum around the A7 had more lenses been available at launch</p> </blockquote> <p>They should have solved the issue with adapting M-mount lenses before releasing the A7/A7R - the issue was known already from the NEX system and as Leica shows, there are solutions (a combination of sensor design and software correction). And certainly, a few more native lenses available right out of the gate would have looked a lot better too. </p> <blockquote> <p>But as far as DX goes, i'm pretty much over it and will either keep my current lenses or sell off my entire system down the line -- unless they wow me with some new lens offerings</p> </blockquote> <p>If Nikon has plans for some DX lenses, then saying so right now is not a moment too late - I certainly am not expecting anything and it is very unlikely that I will purchase another DX lens (I already passed on the Sigma 18-35). My current plan is to have one DX (D7100 successor) body to use with the 80-400 for air show and bird photography - I may have to make a couple of adjustments to have all my needs covered with either Nikon FX or Sony A7 - I'm not in too much of a hurry though.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I've decided Im done with clicking away mindlessly and now I want to move back to film.</p> </blockquote> <p>What exactly is it that precludes you from using your mind and do proper photography when shooting with a DSLR? Proper photography isn't a matter of the camera being used but the person using the camera.<br> There must be a truckload of P&S film cameras with built-in flash out there - why are you interested in two that don't have it?</p>

<p>Perpetrating elaborate hoaxes using photography as a medium doesn't make photography a lie but the photographer. He said so himself:</p> <blockquote> <p>The idea that photography lies is based on a complete misunderstanding of what photography actually is or does. Photographs, by themselves, don’t do anything. They’re just photographs. But they can be made to tell a story or tall tale or outright lie when they are being placed in context, when they’re used to tell a story that might or might not be true. </p> </blockquote> <p>Probably sells a lot better if wrapped in some fancy intellectual sounding artist's talk. The less one understands of it, the better the artist must be. Maybe we need to rephrase the well-known statement about the three kinds of lies "There are lies, damned lies, and photography". And maybe a kiss is just a kiss?</p>

<p>Eric, I had hoped it to be obvious that my above response had been made with tongue planted firmly in cheek.</p> <p>I would never expect Nikon to release a lens road map - for the reason that Ilkka mentioned. Sony seems to be aware of that danger when they released their lens road map for the A7 system, restricting it to the type of lens and how many will be available by the end of 2014 and 2015. It's already July and of the 6 lenses that should at least be announced in 2014, one (70-200/4) is available, one has been shown (PZ 28-135/4 for video), one has been announced as being in development and is expected to be officially announced in August or September (16-35/4 - not even an image of it available yet), for the remainder there are only expectations (though there are plenty of officially looking road maps that just add to the confusion). Add five manual focus Zeiss lenses that are supposedly revealed at photokina in September. Only one thing seems to be clear from history - between Sony announcing a lens and it becoming available, several months will have passed.</p>