Dieter Schaefer

<p>S is for Speedlight - this shows the firmware version of a SB-900/910 or SB-700 (their firmware is updated through the camera). See, for example, here: https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/16174/~/sb-900-5.02-firmware-update</p> <blockquote> <p>L I guess is auto distortion feature version (??)</p> </blockquote> <p>That would be a correct guess: http://nikonimglib.com/dcdata/#os-windows</p>

<p>The Nikon D3 does not have an electronic shutter (it's ability to sync at faster shutter speeds is dependent on the flash supporting FP sync (or HSS in Canon speak); it shares that capability with a lot of other (higher-end) DSLR bodies). The only Nikon cameras that have electronic shutters are the D1, D1X, D1H, D70/D70S, D50, D40. Believe the Canon 1D has one too. All "ancient" - none of the more modern DSLRs has that feature.</p>

<blockquote> <p>More importantly, knowing that I could hire - or, eventually, buy - big lenses and other accessories matters to me in my choice of system.</p> </blockquote> <p>Certainly is for me too - and was a factor when I purchased into the Nikon system some 35 years ago!</p> <blockquote> <p>I'd not, currently, even consider switching to Sony or Pentax for those reasons.</p> </blockquote> <p>I also don't consider switching - but I am no longer opposed to using something else besides my Nikons (without duplicating and wasting money that way). Once the new Zeiss 16-35/4 for Sony FE mount is available and IF it tests well, then a substantial portion of my shooting might occur on Sony rather than Nikon. It is nice to have a small camera sometimes (at others, it can be a royal pain in the b...). At the moment, both Pentax and Sony would have the lenses I would want - but I'd honestly be a bit concerned about the future of both companies (or in the case of Sony whether they will continue along a path they started). Being with Nikon, so far, I had not to endure a mount change (like Canon), the disappearance of the entire company (Minolta, though Sony stepped into the breach there), or the discontinuation of an entire line without a suitable alternative (Leia R).</p> <blockquote> <p>Sticking the D800 AF module in the D7100 surprised me</p> </blockquote> <p>It actually confused me - since it was an indication that a D400 might not be forthcoming.</p> <blockquote> <p> - but then sticking the D7000 AF module in the D5200 surprised me.</p> </blockquote> <p>That surprised me too. I was even more surprised to find it in the D600/D610!</p> <blockquote> <p>I'm not sure how to sell a D7100 in a D800 body; with the exception of the buffer and maybe slight frame rate enhancements (which the D800 body probably can't offer), it's hard to see what to add.</p> </blockquote> <p>To me it is all about the ergonomics. I didn't purchase a D7000 because I could not hold that camera comfortably with its too narrow grip; reaching the AE-L/AF-L button - reprogrammed to AF-On - was nearly impossible. The D7100 and D610 are slightly better but not at the level of a D200/D300 - I simply want "D7200" innards in a D810 shell as it seems to be the only way to get a camera that has the controls I want where I need them to be. It appears though that the dice are cast against Nikon producing such a camera - so at one point, I will need to adapt to the new - which in some aspects feels like a major step backwards and down.</p> <p>Don't understand that desire for a D4X which certainly would cost north of $6K - but then I am not a pro that needs that kind of ruggedness in a body. Still, it appears to me that I could buy two D810 bodies for that money - I would have backup in case one fails and I am quite certain that these cameras could withstand quite some abuse as well. But I suppose that having a built-in grip for vertical shooting is preferable to having to attach one (which I do less and less frequently because I have to take the L-plate off first.</p>

<blockquote> <p>What is Nikon D400?</p> </blockquote> <p>After reflecting a bit more on this - it is actually quite easy. In the same way that the D300 was/is the DX equivalent of the D700 and the D7000/D7100 can be considered the DX equivalent of the D600/D610, the mythical D400 (or D9300 or whatever) should be the DX equivalent of the D800. The one thing though that doesn't quite fit is the fact that the D7100 already has the D800's AF system but not its body-style; I am also not expecting a 36MP DX sensor (24MP is plenty IMO). Another thing that doesn't fit is that the D7100 doesn't share the memory module of the D610 (or the D800's for that matter). I just realized how much I enjoy shooting with a D300/D700 combo because almost everything is at the same place (not to mention the shared battery grip). Can't have that with any DX camera if it is to be paired with a D800/D800E/D810.</p>

<p>Andrew, from this and previous posts on the D400 subject it should be clear that people expect quite different things for such a body, ranging from mini-D4 (in essence, take D2X/D4 body, fill with DX components but provide fps and buffer similar to D4 - price likely $3K+) to make it an updated D300 (include improved 51-area AF, D7100 sensor and make it go at least 8 fps with grip; sell for no more than $1600-$1800). I'm in the latter camp but would probably think about the former quite extensively to (but it would need to be one of those cameras that could last me a long time). The former would also be a much harder sell to the general public; the latter is what IMO Nikon should have done instead of the D7100. But, as I already stated, except for the buffer, I would adjust to a D7100 and expect that a D7200 will do away with that shortcoming (and hopefully not add another instead!). I have never utilized the 8fps my D300 is capable of - I simply never felt the need (though I am sure there were occasions were having it would have been beneficial).</p> <p>While I understand what you say about the "halo-effect" I believe I can state with a high degree of certainty that I am quite immune to it (I certainly work fairly hard at not falling for marketing speak). I don't care all that much about what the D4 can do - it's a camera I can't have so its performance parameters are of no consequence to me. And I have no illusion that even if parts trickle down into lesser cameras (as they do), their performance may not be quite the same. I tend to evaluate cameras I can afford on what they can do for me, not dream what those I can't afford could do. Someone who purchases a D5300 should IMO have done so because he felt or has determined that it is the right camera for him, not because some pro is shooting a D4 at a sporting event. The fact that there is a number of D4(S) owners that purchased this particular camera only because it is "Nikon's best" and it is "what the pros use" proves that my way of thinking isn't the way others roll. </p>

<p>The newer the body, the better the sensor. <br> The D2X has a similar - but improved - AF behavior than the D200. The D300's AF is totally different.<br> Wouldn't expect much difference in ISO performance between D2X and D200; D300 definitely better than D200 and D2X. D300 handles about the same as a D200 (there are a few differences); D2X will be different. Battery life was an issue for me with the D200; it isn't with the D300 (and I expect won't be with a D2X too). <br> D7000: better sensor, otherwise a clear step down from the D300. I can't hold one comfortably, at which point all the advantages over a D200/D300 are quite moot.<br> D7100: better sensor, improved AF, handles better than D7000 but not at the level of the D300.<br> Currently, refurbished D7100 cameras sell for $799 - that's what I would be going for if you can stretch your budget to reach that far (I would even sell the D200 to cover the difference). Just check that you are OK with the difference in handling - it is certainly not what you are used to from the D200.</p>

<p>@Arthur - I believe the corner smearing issue is mostly caused by the combination of non-retrofocus lenses and the thick glass Sony uses in front of the A7/A7R sensor (about three times as thick as that in an M9, for example). AFAIK, the A7R has slanted microprisms but generally seems to do worse than the A7 which doesn't have them. Thick cover glass, on the other hand, will spread light from a point source coming in at a shallow angle over a few pixels - hence the smearing in the corners. Symmetrical lens designs seem to be the most affected as well as lenses that have a short exit pupil to sensor distance; in both cases, light will hit the corners of the sensor at a shallow angle. Leica deals with this with a combination of slanted microprisms, thin cover glass and software correction; something Sony could do if they wanted to.</p> <p>Now, having just had a look at Steve Huff's images taken with the A7S and a Heliar 15mm that don't have color cast issues but seem to show a hint of corner smearing, it appears that Sony found a way to deal with the color cast (or is it simply an effect of the larger sensor sites? Software correction?). </p> <p>Adapter tolerances could certainly play a role - but why is the issue then mostly observed with M-mount lenses but not with other (SLR) legacy glass? Also, wouldn't adapter issues mostly affect one side of the image more than the other? Also, some people seem to be happy to get some no-name $15 adapter to mount their $3K+ glass on an A7/A7R - seems to me that's saving at the wrong spot (akin to mounting a cheap UV filter upfront). I just received a cheap L-plate for my A7 - and almost needless to say that the tolerances on the dove-tails are way off: too loose on the bottom rail (my lever clamp can't clamp down) and too wide on the side rail (can't even get it into the lever clamp but barely manage to get it into a screw clamp). If those cheap L-plates can't be manufactured within tolerance, then I don't want to know how poorly cheap lens adapters will fare. Even those costing $30-$80 seem to have issues: I had one that didn't accept one of my M-mount lenses at all! Another had such a weak locking pin that I could easily turn a lens past it. I ended up with $180 Voigtlander adapters which seem to be doing fine and provide the same feel when mounting lens as if one were mounting it on an M camera directly.</p> <blockquote> <p>would the R mount Leica enthusiast and other SLR/DSLR lens owners be in a better position to make use of the Sony full frame digitals than the Leica M/LTM, Zeiss-Ikon or Voigtlander rangefinder camera and wide angle lens owners?</p> </blockquote> <p>Certainly the case - don't know of any report of issues with SLR lenses on A7/A7R. Except size and associated handling issues of course ;-) If I still had Leica R glass then the A7R would appeal to me a lot more than Leica's "R-solution" in form of the M (and that's not on price alone). I have adapters to mount Nikon glass to the A7 - but the size of the lens/adapter combo turns me off from making much use of them. They come in handy though because they allow the A7 to be used as backup for a Nikon DSLR.</p>

<blockquote> <p>A D400 would take sales from the D4S<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>I never bought that argument - even though I know of two people that purchased a D4 because a suitable D300 successor wasn't to be had. On the other hand, I also know of some for whom a D4 isn't a consideration given its price tag. And if I was really looking for a fast frame rate camera for action, I suppose a D3 or D3S would suffice and save me a bundle over the "halo flagship" D4S. In my case though, I rather have more pixels than a ultrafast frame rate. I might even go for a D610 then - so now Nikon needs to stop making those because they are taking sales away from the D4S! Even a Df takes some sales away from the D4S! If Nikon doesn't want any camera to take sales away from their flagship camera then the logical conclusion would be to only produce the flagship - not much of a business model though I suppose!</p> <p>By the same token - a D300 must have taken a lot of sales away from a D3 then. I wish I had the sales figures, but I bet that a lot more D300/D300S were sold then D3 bodies and I would go as far as to assume that the D300/D300S made Nikon more profit. How big exactly is the market for a D4/D4S cameras? A quarter of a million over the production lifespan?</p>

<p>I use a 35mm cron ASPH on an A7 - while there is no magenta color cast, there is smearing in the corners even when the lens is stopped down. I am still evaluating if there is anything that I can do with that combo - but one thing is certain, utility is going to be limited.<br> Voigtlander 21/4 on A7 - no matter which corrective pathway I tried, I can't get consistent results (unlike on the NEX 6 where correction was relatively easy). Holding onto the lens for now until I have given it a try on the A6000. <br> Ultron 21/1.8 - works fine on the A7.<br> Ultron 28/1.9 - don't know.</p> <p>FWIW, I tried the Zeiss 24/1.8 on a NEX 6 and was impressed. Didn't keep it because I traded the NEX 6 for an A7 the day after I received the (used) Zeiss (which I promptly returned).</p>

<blockquote> <p>Why does it matter so much that Nikon specifically make this type of a camera? If you want a specific tool that is not offered by a particular brand, and one that is offered by another, just buy what you need and get your images.</p> </blockquote> <p>Only an option for people with "unlimited" funds at their disposal IMHO. Didn't have the guts to do what Michael did - and had been hoping for longer than many that Nikon might come up with a DX body above the D7100 (which was needlessly crippled with the small buffer). Does Nikon really expect me to pony up 3x as much for a D800 (or now D810) to get the DX-equivalent of D7000-MP and D7100-AF? Or at least twice as much to get D200-MP and D7000-AF with a D610? Quite needless to say that a 16-MP D4/D4S doesn't solve my problem of getting as many pixels as possible on a subject without investing in a 600/4 or even 800/5.6 lens. Not that I would even consider spending that much money on a camera body (or a lens for that matter).</p> <p>I am expecting less and less from Nikon when it comes to DX cameras (and lenses) - currently I hope there will be at least a D7100 successor with more buffer that can shoot 7-8 fps and maybe a dedicated and properly positioned AF-ON button. Not dreaming anymore of a "D400" in whatever shape and form (i.e. true D300 successor or even a mini-D4; none of which will happen). </p> <p>Following the arguments in this forum why a higher-end DX camera isn't possible because of the D610 "above" it it seems logical that once Nikon comes with a even lower-priced FX body (inevitable IMO) that there won't be space even for a D7100-type DSLR camera and D5x00 is where it's going to end with DX (if DX doesn't get put out to pasture altogether).</p> <p>Quite frankly, I didn't purchase the D7100 because I was hoping there would be something more suitable above it shortly thereafter - a hope that now has proven futile. If there is no such announcement come photokina, then for Xmas I might be getting a D7100 and work on adjusting down to it from a D300.</p>

<p>Here's the EX rating directly copied from keh.com website: <em>"Excellent" 80-89% of original condition. Shows moderate wear for the age of the item. May have small dents and/or dings and slight finish wear. Glass may have slight marks, dust, anomalies and/or blemishes that will not affect picture quality.*</em><br /> <em><br /></em>The * refers to a glass disclaimer regarding dust. Now, is a "slight mark" a scratch by another name or not? Or does a scratch fall under "blemishes"? Nowhere does it mention "scratch", so they must be covered by one of the other expressions. Note that EX+ says "very clean glass" and LN- is "perfect glass". <br /> I find it a bit funny to worry about the resale value being reduced because of a "blemish" or "mark" - after all, one is getting the lens at a discount because of it!<br /> It's always a bit of a gamble to purchase a lens with a rating that indicates that there might be marks/blemishes on the glass. Sometimes one gets lucky and the glass is fine - at other times, one isn't so lucky. Fairly certain though that if the sellers would be more specific about the glass condition, then no one would buy such a lens for the advertised price but would demand a much bigger discount.<br> I have purchased three lenses graded EX from keh over the years and none had marks on the glass that I noticed. If the price differential to EX+ isn't too large, I avoid the gamble and go for the higher grade.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Have any of you that struggled with which format to shoot?</p> </blockquote> <p>When I purchased my first DSLR back in winter 2004, it was with the intent to use it parallel with film; I even purchased an F5 in 2005 to that effect. I shot almost exclusively slides - and most of those suffered the fate of being viewed once or twice, archived, and mostly forgotten (I hardly ever make prints). </p> <p>In 2006 I realized that digital was "it" for me; it's possibilities and (to me) advantages over film revived my interest in photography and I started to sell off my film gear. Inherited some 35mm and medium format film equipment in 2008 and attempted for a few years to find use for it. Increasing film and development costs, and the rather poor scanning quality commercially available to me finally succeeded in turning me off film completely and my film gear is all sold now. </p> <p>My wife held onto film for a bit longer than I did - she is just now transitioning away from it (and I don't think she will touch use her F100 again); like me she realizes that she gets more out of her photography by having the results available in digital format - which is a lot easier if the images are taken that way to begin with.</p> <p>Discussions about whether film or digital are "better" don't interest me - digital works for me and film doesn't. Being limited by film almost turned me away from photography; digital came to the rescue even though at the time I didn't realize its potential.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Yet photo.net allows your photographs to be tweeted, Facebooked, Googled, liked or disliked</p> </blockquote> <p>Nope, photo.net doesn't. The mere fact that you can view an image means that you can also "steal it", "pin it", "tweet it", "stumble-upon it" or download it (your browser does it when you view it anyway). Photo.net does nothing to "allow" this to happen - there just isn't a way to prevent it (actually there is, don't upload in the first place).</p> <blockquote> <p>photo.net allows your photographs to be used in any shape, form, or fashion without you having the slightest say-so in the matter</p> </blockquote> <p>Again no - photo.net doesn't allow this at all, there is just no way to protect them. The only person that allow this is you - by uploading them to the interwebs in the first place.</p> <blockquote> <p>Or do any of you even pay any attention to where your work ends up?</p> </blockquote> <p>I used to - not anymore though. My only way to protect myself is to upload small images only - at least no one can make decent-size prints with them. One could spend all day issuing DMCA take-down notices - to what effect? You could go the route of registering copyright and then hope that someone with deep pockets apprehends one of those image - then it's going to be payday for you.</p> <p>There are entire websites that are based on "copyright infringement" (for example, pinterest); they have enough lawyer speak in their TOS to protect themselves and the users are "blissfully unaware (or don't care)"(?) that they are breaking copyright law all the time.</p>

<blockquote> <p>that old 15mm f/3.5 lens fetches around $1000 used. For a single focal length that's not much of a bargain compared to the extra flexibility of the 14-24mm Zoom-Nikkor</p> </blockquote> <p>If there is a 15mm that could compete with the 14-24 than it would be the Zeiss Distagon 15/2.8 lens - distortion is definitely lower on the prime. It certainly is no bargain though - costing about $1000 more than the 14-24. From the DxO testing it appears that the corners would be lagging behind the Nikkor at all apertures. The Samyang 14/2.8 seems to be doing quite well in terms of sharpness, but has much higher distortion and LoCA compared to the Zeiss.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The 16-35 is pretty good, but more so at the longer end</p> </blockquote> <p>In terms of sharpness it's actually weakest overall at the long end - though I agree that at 16mm corner performance is a bit of a misnomer unless stopped down to f/11. Optically, it seems to be a wash with the less expensive AF-S 18-35 which isn't quite as good in the center but often better in the corners; one definitely pays a premium for two additional mm and VR. The 14-24 seems indeed to be the gold standard when even sharpness over the entire frame is desired.</p>

<p>The 16-35mm f/4G AF-S VR has some fairly high barrel distortion at the short end which might be problematic when used in architectural-type photography - it's higher at 16mm than the 14-24 at 14 (where it's fairly severe too). The Tokina 16-28 has less distortion but it's more wavy in nature and hence not easy to correct. The Tokina 17-35/4 also about the same level of distortion - both Tokina's suffer from rather high LoCA (easily correctable though). Both the Nikon 17-35/2.8 and the 18-35/3.5-4.5 AF-S display higher distortion than the two Tokinas.</p> <p>Quite frankly - given what some of these lenses cost - I would go with a D7100 and the Tokina 11-16/2.8 for that particular application. Low distortion and vignetting, and fairly even sharpness distribution over the entire frame once stopped down a stop or two. Typical for Tokina is the high LoCA - which is easy enough to correct for though.</p>

<p>Buy a used 16-85 and sell it when you "upgrade to FX in the future". The monetary loss incurred then might not be more than renting said lens for two weeks now.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Given the OP's other lenses the mere mentioning of "paid wedding photographer" and the fact that there isn't a budget for the 70-200/2.8 VR (preferably the newer version) leaves only the 80-200/2.8D as a valid option IMHO. No buts or ifs - the versatility is needed and not given by any of the other lenses mentioned - which are all for rather specialized applications. First things first - get the zoom to cover your needs.</p> <p>For his personal travel photography, he is (a) already pretty well equipped (the 70-210 isn't actually all that bad stopped down a stop or two) and the 80-200 can certainly do duty while traveling (at the expense of carrying its 1.5kg weight). Moot point really - business needs come first. </p> <p>None of his lenses have real close-up capabilities - but a Canon 500D diopter on either the 24-70 or 80-200 should be sufficient until a macro lens can be acquired. Debating a choice between 80-200 and 105/2 DC seems to me putting wants way above needs; there's no way the 105/2 can be a substitute for the zoom.</p> <p>The two-ring 80-200/2.8 can have problems when used near 200mm and close to its minimum focus distance - but a trip to Nikon (lens and camera) can sometimes improve things substantially. </p>