Javier Gutierre

<p>Allen, <br> Really love that street shot. Those amazing smiles for sure, the context is awesome and the juxtaposition of the kid in the stroller makes this money !</p>

<p>This one is tough really. I have a few decent FA* lenses, but really wonder how they will perform with a modern sensor. I will definitely not be an early adopter of this camera, but will be keeping an eye on how it performs. Like Michael says, will wait to see how it does at DPR. Hopefully they will test it with both old and new lenses. If it does well with FA* LENSES, then I will really consider one. If it comes down to having to be new lenses, then I will be out. There is simply no way for me to justify the expense at that point. I would not be expecting much from the auto focus speed, especially from FA* LENSES. The entry level price is really good though. </p>

<p>Thanks Shun,<br> You answered my question. The reason that body is so beloved by me is because I have 4 lenses that are perfectly matched for it individually. I mean as good as I believe they can be. So much so that I keep those lenses with that body in its own bag and keep them together. I know I can do the same with my other bodies and will do so.<br> I do have the 7k, 72k, D750 and D800E and yes I do have the D500 pre ordered, so body is not the issue, but that one is. I have read that this is a great place to send Nikon equipment for repairs. <a href="http://www.nikoncamerarepair.com/">http://www.nikoncamerarepair.com/</a> Would this be where you would send yours to? </p>

<p>Howdy folks. <br> So my beloved D7100 is now giving me an Err MSG. No number just Err. It is behaving like a machine gun. Ultra fast shutter speeds and then it freezes. I have tried different lenses, removed the battery grip, cleaned the contacts and reset it. I am fairly sure it is out of warranty. I bought it when it first came out and did not buy an extended service contract. Does anyone have any ideas or thoughts? What is a reasonable amount of money to pay to have it repaired? Is it even worth it? Truth be told, I really do not need the body, but hate to see it broken. I feel like I have gotten my moneys worth considering all the joy it has brought me. What say thou?<br> Thanks javier</p>

<p>To me the real question is this. While I am sure the image quality will be great, I can't help but wonder about the auto focus speed. </p>

<blockquote> <p>If you think a FF camera is going to get you a job as a photographer then you are kidding yourself. There are plenty of professional photographers who use cropped cameras. Tell you the truth, 2018 is a long way off. I would concentrate on my studies because just like pretty girls, cameras are always going to be there...</p> </blockquote> <p>Harry nailed it. </p>

<p>Nikon D7000, Sigma 30F/1.4<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18110138-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="475" /></p>

<p>Nikon D7200, Tamron 17-55F/2.8 (My new favorite lens)<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18179879-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="450" /></p>

<p>Nikon D7100, Tokina 12-24F/4.0<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18179874-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="450" /></p>

<blockquote> <p>I can't understand why someone would use a high quality camera and then throw most of its IQ away by shooting crippled JPEGs.</p> </blockquote> <p>I have been told that for years, so I know I am in the minority and I also know you are right. When I use my Pentax bodies, I shoot in DNG mode. Those files are about 16mb, about the same size as a Nikon Jpeg. The Pentax Jpegs at their finest settings are about 6mb. I think for what I shoot as well, the jpegs are well suited as well. Heck, I still shoot allot of film :-) I suppose if Photoshop CS5.5 would open up the PEF files, I might try them. </p>

<p>Personally I am a Jpeg shooter and spend as little time in PP as possible. Those in camera pre sets are a waste of time in my opinion. I have tried them all and end up binning them. As for in camera J pegs, I have my D7K's set to the finest Jpeg setting, max sharpness, max DR settings, and nearly max settings for contrast and Saturation. I get very nice vivid colors. The jpeg files are huge so if I need to tweak them, there is plenty there. <br> Look through my profile and see the various images. All shot as J pegs. <br> p.s. The lens has allot to do with contrast and colors.</p>

<p>Pentax ME SUPER, SMC 28F/2.8, ILFORD DELTA 400<br> <img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CKGzmIakHb4/Vpsf2ubSzEI/AAAAAAAAEOU/xHt7i4BKP5k/s1600/Pentax%2BME%2BSuper%2BSMC%2B28%2BF2.8%2BIlford%2BHP5%2B400%2B%252831%2529.jpg" alt="" width="1545" height="1024" /></p>

<p>Love that first one Douglas.. I love the creativity. Something that seems to be missing with this younger generation.</p>

<p><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UiR4IodZAyA/VqWgumfNNAI/AAAAAAAAERg/xAyVReULguU/s1600/The%2Bcults%2Bin%2Baction.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="805" /></p>

<p><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i5y2TgoJ5E4/Vq6vmRgkj_I/AAAAAAAAETI/wXrGATNMYyI/s1600/IMGP3721.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1061" /></p>

<p>Thank you very, VERY much for sharing. It brought me allot of joy....8-)</p>

<p>Nikon D7100 Sigma 30F/1.4 Art<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18186573-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="450" /><br> <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18186573-lg.jpg">Good quality large here.</a></p>

<blockquote> <p >Eric Arnold <img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" />, Feb 08, 2016; 04:08 p.m.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>that looks like atmospheric haze. not so much a camera issue as a technique issue. most cameras would struggle with that scene, as shot. not sure why you shot at ISO 800 as that scene doesnt seem all that dark, but there may be slight overexposure which is actually fairly well-controlled in terms of noise, from looking at your crops. also, not sure if you used a tripod, but the 4th photo you posted seems to have slight subject movement. you may be able to reduce some of the haze effect with a circular polarizer, but it's asking a lot for any camera shooting from that far away into a hazy background.</p> </blockquote> <p>I would agree...</p> <blockquote> <p >Rodeo Joe <img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" />, Feb 08, 2016; 04:36 p.m.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>The "smudgy" looking foliage in pic #3 looks to me like in-camera noise reduction applied to a JPEG. The camera raises the level of "smudging" (pixel-to-pixel smoothing) according to local contrast and ISO speed. The impression of unsharpness is simply down to low contrast caused by atmospheric haze IMO.<br> The overall blue cast doesn't help with colour differentiation or saturation either.<br> If you have a RAW image to work on (and if not, why not?) then you can (1) correct the White Balance, (2) raise the contrast by using the curves tool of your RAW processor to apply a gentle "S" shape to the tone curve, then (3) apply some noise reduction to taste. Personally I'd rather see a bit of noise than artificial-looking smudging of low-contrast detail.<br> I've done stage 1 and 2 as described above to your first image, together with a bit of saturation increase. If the same was done to the original full-sized image I'm sure it would look much sharper. The colour is still a bit off because I didn't have a RAW file to work with.</p> </blockquote> <p>Very cool and very good...This is why both Eric and Rodeo Joe are some of my favorite posters here. Always worth the read.</p>

<p>Totally agree. Very easy to do. Personally I found that these v-swabs are the best. <br /><br> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/561007-REG/Visible_Dust_4080470_UltraMXD_Vswab_1_0x_Green.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/561007-REG/Visible_Dust_4080470_UltraMXD_Vswab_1_0x_Green.html</a><br> They leave no streaks and to truly find out if your sensor is dirty set the lens to infinity and at F/22. Shoot the sky or a black white wall. These along with Eclipse cleaning solution work well, even to remove the oil spots. Even those oil spots that were notorious in the D7000 that even had people sending those bodies back to nikon. The biggest thing is patience. Never use a swab twice. Once and done. </p>

<p>Ilford Delta 400<br> <img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/2016%20Film/Pentax%20ME%20Super%20SMC%2028F%202.8%20Ilford%20Delta%20400%2032.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="679" /></p>

<p>Personally I have one and my daughter (21) also has one. Film cameras in general are making a comeback in the 15-25 year old hipster folks. So much so.....<a href="http://www.samys.com/s/pentax%20k1000">Are you ready for this. Samys advertises them regularly on their site and flyers. </a></p>

<blockquote> <p >Dan M , Feb 05, 2016; 08:43 a.m.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>I shoot Canon rather than Nikon, but the issues are the same. I shoot both full frame (fx) and crop sensor (DX).<br> IMHO, a very important issue for wildlife is pixel density, which determine how many pixels you will get on the subject at a given distance with a given focal length. This is really what is at issue when people write about the "reach" of a body. the two you are considering have similar pixel counts, so the DX has a much higher pixel density. That means that for wildlife, for any given number of pixels on the animal, you will need a much longer lens (1.5x) with the FX camera.<br> FF has some advantages. All other things being equal, FF cameras handle low light somewhat better. Given a sufficiently high-quality lens, they will produce more detailed images, which will be apparent if you print large but probably not if you don't. The downsides are that they cost more, are bigger and heavier, and require longer, heavier, more expensive lenses for a given amount of reach.<br> The exception would be a high-pixel-count FF camera, which would let you crop and retain a lot of pixels on the subject.<br> This is why many wildlife photographers use crop-sensor cameras and why they were so impatient for the new crop models recently released by both Canon and Nikon.<br> After I bought a FF camera several years ago, I kept my crop sensor camera, primarily for two uses. One is shooting macro shots of bugs, and the other is long telephoto work, like wildlife (which I don't do much). Pixel density is reason in both cases.<br> Also, keep in mind that you are going to need other equipment--certainly lenses (telephotos can be very expensive), and probably a tripod or monopod. Unless you have unlimited $$, the question I would ask is: are you better off paying more to get an FX body or to put that money into lenses?</p> </blockquote> <p>This is very well written and in my limited knowledge, very good advise. <br> Personally I shoot nikon and have both the D7200 and D750. If I had to choose one or the other for wildlife, I would choose the D7200 for the extra reach and a lighter rig. You will not be giving up much in the way of image quality unless it is really low light. </p>

<p>When I purchased my Grey market D750 I also purchased a 3 year warranty for an extra $100.00 that is accepted by <br> <a href="http://www.nikoncamerarepair.com/">http://www.nikoncamerarepair.com/</a> So there is no risk as far as I am concerned. </p>

<blockquote> <p>And also DX format being a smaller format means that the lenses have to be a lot better than on FX for the same resolution in the final image. 24 Megapixel DX requires good contrast at 125 lp/mm while 24 Megapixel FX requires good contrast at 83 lp/mm. That is a huge differerence.</p> </blockquote> <p>Fascinating. I wondered about this. Many of my lenses that I use to go back and forth between DX and FX always perform better on FX. I have no idea what this is. </p> <blockquote> <p> <br> 24 Megapixel DX requires good contrast at 125 lp/mm while 24 Megapixel FX requires good contrast at 83 lp/mm.</p> </blockquote> <p>Perhaps you would be willing to shed some light on this.</p>