steve_bingham

<p>I would recommend the 24-85 if you NEED sharpness. Most really don't. :)</p>

<p>Any version of Photoshop can do simple masking. If a novice, learn to use the selection tool. See method #4 in this simple tutorial I wrote. <a href="http://dustylens.com/great_skies.htm">http://dustylens.com/great_skies.htm</a></p>

<p>Here is a super simple tutorial I wrote many years ago (PS CS3). It answers your question. See step #5.</p>

<p>I hope you have the original! Masking is necessary but you will need the original. PS CS6 requires a GREAT deal of skill and practice. Something like Topaz Remask or Vertus Fluid Mask will make the job a LOT easier. I prefer Vertus Fluid Mask. Here is a quick tutorial I made years ago. <a href="http://dustylens.com/masking_tutorial.htm">http://dustylens.com/masking_tutorial.htm</a></p>

<p>I have used a NEC MultiSync LCD2690WXi2 for 3 years now. Great monitor. Try a newer version - with a calibration device (ColorSync).</p>

<p>These items are highlighted because they can't be used. You probably need to be in <strong>another Mode</strong>. For example, many filters and some functions can't work in 16 bit mode. Change to 8 bit.</p>

<p>I absolutely LOVE my D600!!!! Amazing sensor. Purchased Jan 3, 2013. Still clean as a whistle. Do I expect to have to clean the sensor (AA filter)? You bet!!!! Standard procedure on just about any DSLR after 2-3,000 shots. The dynamic range, color bits, and high ISO performance from this sensor is simply amazing. In fact, it made me upgrade my lens stable:<br>

Nikon 24mm f1.4<br>

Sigma 35mm f1.4<br>

Nikon 50mm f1.8<br>

Nikon 70-200 f4<br>

One happy camper!</p>

<p>My D600, purchased from B&H on Jan3, 2013, has remained spotless. Nikon has fixed the problem.<br /> <br /> However, Nikon is terrible in not admitting to this horrendous problem. Terrible public relations - and continuing even after the feeble announcement. I expect to clean my sensor 2x a year. This is an easy task that takes 5 minutes.</p>

<p>It is a great camera with a great sensor. Just be careful when buying one!!!!!!!!!!</p>

<p>Some funny comments above. The D7000, D7100, and D600 pretty much use the same frame. <strong>Very little difference between the three in weight or physical size</strong>. I find my new D600 almost identical in feel and ergonomics as my old D7000. More importantly I like it! Medium size hands and many years spent as a semi-pro tennis player. SDSC varsity and many tournaments. My right hand is pretty muscular - not bragging, just trying to offer some perspective. Pretty average hand size.<br /> The D7100 comes close to replacing the D300 - but not totally. Look for the D7100s in 4-5 months.<br>

However, back to the question. The buffer size SUCKS! Reason enough for some to wait . . .</p>

<p>Actually, the resolution figures on the 50mm f1.8 are actually slightly better than the 50mm f1.4.<br /> Do you need f1.4?<br /> As for micro contrast that is pretty much an out dated term as raw files and any sort of PP skills makes it a moot point.<br>

The 50mm f1.8 is one of life's true bargains!</p>

<p>Pete, how does this work on manual focus <strong>wide angles</strong> - like the Samyang 35 or Zeiss 35? I mean, can it do the job?</p>

<p>I think so as the 17-35 f2.8 was discontinued for a short period - <strong>then put back into production</strong>. In my opinion, having tested it against the 16-35, I would prefer it over the 16-35 as well as the 14-24. In fact, it out performs the 14-24 at 24mm. More importantly, the 14-24 is highly susceptible to flare - especially with landscapes - and becomes very cumbersome when any type of filter holder is added as it will not take screw-ins. This was a problem with me as I like to use ND filters. The 16-35, however, is very weak in the corners at 16mm. That leaves the OLD standby, the 17-35.<br>

I have had and used all 3 lenses at one time.</p>

<p>Wet cleaning is pretty easy. Two drops of Eclipse onto a Sensor Swab. Let sit for 20 seconds and simply wipe left, then right. The surfacr should then be clean. Rarely it takes a second Sensor Swab. Do not reuse the 1st one. google for video on this or go directly to youtube.com.</p>

<p>Well, It looks like Nikon may have found a solution for the early D600 problems of lubrication and dust spots. I just received a D600 from B&H (today) with the serial number 30<strong>6</strong>0xxx. With over 120 shots cranked off I can not find a <strong>SINGLE</strong> dust spot or oil spot. Not one. Amazing. Never happened before with all my other Nikon bodies. <br>

So I blew up the sky shot to 300% - and then to pixel level in PS CS6. Nothing. Clean as a whistle. So then I pushed the slide, narrowing the Levels and throwing in a strong S curve (PS CS6). Nothing, right up to the point where the image fell apart.<br>

<strong>Conclusive? Nope. But damn encouraging!</strong> I have owned (Nikon bodies) the Fuji S2, Kodak SLR/n, D2x, D200, D300, D3x, D700, D7000, D800, and now the D600. (I buy and sell bodies like crazy. Sometimes at a profit when I am an early adapter). However, the D600 reports made me extremely nervous. Bad, bad, bad.<br>

I also see that others are also having excellent results with later bodies (Lensrentals.com forum)<br>

Meanwhile, my Rocket Blower and pec Pads stand at the ready! (I certainly needed them on the earlier bodies)<br>

Keep the faith!<br>

Steve Bingham<br>

www.ghost-town-photography.com<br>

<a href="http://www.dustylens.com">www.dustylens.com</a></p>

<p>Some further considerations:<br>

The Nikon D7000 has a limited preamp and usable hertz (plus or minus 10 dB) is limited to 150-5,000 (measured). This is pretty much POT'S range (telephone). I certainly would not use it to record music where any sort of decent fidelity is required. The external shotgun mike will help, but it <strong>can not overcome the limitations on the on-board preamp.</strong><br>

Two solutions: One, hang a small preamp on the camera and feed it the input from the shotgun. A few small problems with this. You could overload the in-camera pre-amp. If the camera uses AGC (not sure about this) you will get noise pumping. Not good.<br>

Second solution is to feed the external mic into a decent recording device. This can be had within reason and even hung on the tripod (or camera?). Then use the camera audio for syncing with good audio in editing. This requires some editing skills, but it can produce wonderful results.<br>

The best way can be very costly. Use a second sound man!<br>

Basically, the shotgun or lavalier mics are great for interviews - not for music. Maybe the Nikon 7100 will address the preamp issue.</p>

<p>99.9% of the time focusing errors are user errors. Had my D7000 for a year with no focusing problems using 4 lenses. Any OOF was my problem.</p>

<p>Here is an illustrated tutorial I wrote back in my PS 7 days! A long time ago, but it still works great. This method uses depth cuing and is very realistic.<br>

<a href="http://dustylens.com/creating_a_fog_effect.htm">http://dustylens.com/creating_a_fog_effect.htm</a></p>

<p>1- TS lenses require a TON of setting up - just like a 4x5 view camera. Are you patient enough?<br>

2- The resolution of the 70-300 will increase using the D800. However, using a 70-200 would increase it even more.</p>

<p>To answer your question, "Yes". Until the end of 2012, CS3-CS5 folks can upgrade for $199 plus tax.</p>

<p>Also, please note that you can see the fonts at a larger level when in Photoshop. Go to the top "Type" pull down menu. Go to "Font preview size". Select Extra Large or Huge . . . or the preview size of your choice.</p>

<p>Scott pretty much nailed it.</p>

<p>Wouter,<br>

I will take a serious look at the GT520. I assume it comes in a 1 GB version. Thanks. I hate noise.</p>

 

<p>Eric,<br>

Very interesting. I have used this benchmark with my system with CS5. Got some fantastic scores a few years back, but not sure it would even work with CS6?????? In any case, the reviews of the 2 year old GeForce 460 GTX please me - especially the low power and noise figures. I am NOT a gamer - but I am a photographer (uh, at least I try to be.)</p>

<p><strong>Thanks, all!</strong> These have pretty much been my findings also. My earlier google pretty much discovered all of the above. As I do no 3D and no video (or very little) I guess I will simply go with the less expensive GeForce 460 GTX (1 GB). My current 7800 seems to lack some features in CS6 AND it is only 256 - but it does "work" with CS6- to a degree. As for DDR, I have plenty at 16 GB.</p>

<p>PC platform. Assuming I only use PS CS6 for photography, why would I want to spend more money for a GeForce GTX 560 as opposed to a cheaper GeForce GTX 460 - both with 1 gig. What would the advantages be?</p>