Dieter Schaefer

<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>

@JDM - like Fred, I am lost and need a translation. Don't want to hire a lawyer to help me understand what you wrote - am afraid it might take several and I be stuck with a few contradicting opinions.

A camera is as much "just a tool" as a car is "just a means" to get people and stuff from A to B. Just like for some not any car will do, not any camera will do either. In either case, I pick the one that helps me enjoy the task rather than "just" be done with it. A camera is a tool alright - but just like with any tools there are good ones and bad ones; the ones that help and the ones that just get in the way.

<p>85mm was the longest focal length I took to Italy - and even that lens did not see much use. I am considering trading my f/2.8 70-200 for the f/4 version - simply because for many situations, the f/2.8 is too large and too heavy. Or I may forgo a zoom all together and use the 150/2.8 instead (maybe with a 1.4x in the bag "just in case"). </p> <p>Please keep in mind that many places in Italy will not allow you to setup a tripod and many will not let you take a camera bag inside. If you plan on taking more than the camera with lens attached into those buildings and museums, consider alternative means of carrying your gear (like a photo vest). </p>

<p>Bill - could you enlighten me as to what is humorous about posting that image in the nature forum and asking to identify the creature? Obviously someone with a rather questionable taste in attire selection. Though at least the tie choice has merit - I always feel like I have a hangman's noose around my neck when I wear one. But why the "two thumbs up"?</p>

<blockquote> <p>More than 30,000 people in 15 countries were asked to rank the nations with the worst sense of humour and Germany came out on top. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/8560815/Germany-officially-the-worlds-least-funny-country.html</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm German and am thus in a group that is accused of having no sense of humor whatsoever - but maintain that German humor is misunderstood anywhere outside of Germany - it is simply "lost in translation". By contrast, American or British humor is often just lost on me. And I am lost on how to weave photographers into this at all!</p>

<p>Eric, you forgot the three 55-xxx lenses and the 40mm macro! Canon has even less! But the advantage that all their primes work on all their crop sensor cameras without restriction - whereas most Nikon primes don't AF on the lower-end bodies. In more than a decade Nikon has not managed to update many of their FX primes to AF-S - so how can we possibly expect them to focus on DX primes?</p> <blockquote> <p>90/2 (135 equiv.)</p> </blockquote> <p>The FX 85/1.8 isn't all that big - and I doubt that it would shrink substantially if it was designed for the smaller image circle of DX. And dare I say that there is now a 58/1.4 lens that's "perfect" for portraits on DX - with the only caveat that it costs more than any of the DX camera bodies currently available. But I am sure there are many takers - maybe even a few more than those who purchased the FX 24/1.4 so that they can have the 35-mm equivalent FOV on DX.</p> <p>As soon as Nikon had an FX sensor, high-end DX was doomed (how's that for hindsight being 20/20?). Nikon concentrated on lower priced FX primes and zooms so that they had something to offer to those who were now forced into upgrading to FX. Too bad that the D600 backfired so badly and that the D800 wasn't the D700 replacement many had hoped for.</p> <p>I was really surprised by the 18-35/1.8 - not only that it is even possible but by the quality of the optics. Of course, the lens is large and heavy (but so is the Otus 55/1.4 compared to other 50mm lenses). Now I am wondering why there isn't a 24-85/2.8 for FX - or a 16-70/2.8 for DX. I bet there won't even be a 16-85/4! Fairly certain Nikon will see the need to bring out another 18-xx(x) though. And another 55-xxx...</p>

<blockquote> <p>are we now saying that DX was only ever a temporary stop gap before full-frame sensors became affordable</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes that seems to be quite clear now. The woefully inadequate DX lens system (or should I say lopsided towards consumer-grade zoom solutions) is proof enough (not only Nikon but Canon too).</p> <blockquote> <p>Anyone actually know how much more a FX sensor costs to make compared to a DX sensor?</p> </blockquote> <p>Don't know - but am guessing (or have read it somewhere) that it's about 10x. Less FX sensor per wafer and higher percentage of unusable sensor per wafer as the main reasons for the difference? In addition to lower production numbers of FX vs DX cameras?</p> <blockquote> <p>DX is in no way more pocketable than FX</p> </blockquote> <p>Part of the blame is that Nikon was stuck with the F-mount (or more precisely the flange-to-sensor distance) - otherwise the camera could be a made a bit smaller. Canon at least made their crop sensor mirrors smaller to allow EF-S lenses to protrude farther into the mirror chamber but had to make their EF-S lenses incompatible with their full frame bodies as a result. Not that using DX lenses on an FX camera is something all that desirable.</p>

<p>Yes!<br /> On second thought: No!<br /> Then again: maybe!<br /> Finally: won't see either!<br> <br /> Canon's 7D upgrade is almost as overdue as Nikon's D300/D300S upgrade - and in both cases, the lower-end cameras have move upward to almost fill the gap. Seems quite likely that neither camera will have a true successor. The D7100 is better than the D300 in nearly every aspect (that stupid small memory being the exception) and the same could be said for the 70D. Smaller and lighter seem to be more important than external controls and fast frame rate.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Yes.<br> No.</p>

<p>Robert, you don't mention what camera(s) you are using. DSLRs as well as AF-era SLRs can give one a hard time manual focusing since the screen doesn't display changes in DOF once the maximum aperture of the lens is faster than approximately f/2.8 and hence focus accuracy is compromised - independent of the focus throw of the lens being used. In other words, while an f/1.4 lens will give you a brighter viewfinder than an f/2.8 one, the shallower DOF of the faster lens is not viewable on the screen. Exchanging the screen for one optimized for manual focusing will help getting back some of the accuracy lost with AF viewing screens. Many AF cameras have a "focus confirmation" indicator that may or may not be helpful. I have had cameras where it is rather inconsistent and other were it is a very reliable indicator.</p> <p>In general, in the Nikon world, it appears that Ai lenses have a somewhat longer focus throw than Ai-S ones and for manual focusing, I usually prefer the former.</p> <p>As to excessively long throw - the one lens I had a hard time with was the Leica Macro-Elmarit 100/2.8 - almost two full turns between MFD and infinity. Smooth but stiff - and tedious if one had to move between close-up and far away often. Naturally, very accurate when focusing carefully - but small changes were hard to see on the focusing screen.</p>

<p>Agree with Wouter - there is such a thing as too long. It also depends on what you focus with - optical viewfinder or live view/EVF. A lens with a long focus throw may not produce much variance on a SLR focus screen when small changes are made - with the result that the focus may end up not exactly where you want it to be. No such issue with live view/EVF - but one may have to zoom in to see those small differences.</p>

<blockquote> <p>good chance you'll not fuss to send it in</p> </blockquote> <p>Not an issue with instant rebates.<br> Point of rebates: push sales up to meet some financial goal (for example, the next quarterly statement). Or clear "old" inventory. Certainly a slick marketing scheme - give the customer the feeling to get a "deal" and to push him to make the purchase. Works well even on me - I would not have traded the Nikon 85/1.8D for the 1.8G without the $100 rebate. Certainly liked the $400 rebate for the 80-400 AF-S. And would not own the Sony A7 without the $400 off I received in a special promotion. <br> The backside for the company is - knowing there might be one, I might hold of on a purchase until rebate time!</p>