mon_goose

<p>1. Can these cameras do auto ISO in manual mode (you set shutter and aperture, and camera chooses ISO)?</p> <p>2. Can you disengage autofocus on these cameras from the shutter release (so that you only focus with the AFL button)?</p> <p>3. When you program the Fn button on the XE2 to set ISO, can you directly set the ISO level as well as switch between manual ISO and auto ISO with the Fn key?</p> <p> </p>

<p>I mean the rubber and plastic, not the sensor. It's become all sticky and dusty.</p> <p>The rubber parts of my d700 have come off too. What's the proper way to adhere them?</p> <p>What's the official advice from nikon about maintenance (I don't want to damage the body with corrosive materials or super glue)?</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>The dynamic range change is a significant advantage, and I care much more about that as a sensor difference than I care about the resolution - </p> </blockquote> <p>Keep in mind that post processing software keeps evolving. Updates are free, a new body is not. <br> Capturing a high dynamic scene is a matter of proper technique. <br> Here's an example of what a d700 can do when images are captured and processed correctly. Shooting into the setting sun should turn the foreground pitch black.</p> <p><img src="https://s32.postimg.org/nnebgu82d/image.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Sensors aside, the first thing I consider when packing is the size and weigth of a lens :)<br> The 70-300mm being more than I needed, I started looking for an alternative. </p> <ul> <li>35-135mm f3.5-4.5 complementary focal length to the tried & true 20-35mm, although I'm not sure I'll like the push-pull mechanism and the high distortion? <br /><br /></li> <li>28-200mm f4-5.6 an even slower lens and equally distorted but very small and very light, might fill in the occasional long shot?<br /><br /></li> <li>85mm f1.8 as appealing as small & bright lenses are, I'm not sure about the utility of fixed tele in the countryside.</li> </ul>

<blockquote> <p>I wasn't sure whether I wanted a D800 when it was first announced, even though I have a couple of D700 prints where I feel I could have benefitted from some more pixels. What made me buy it was the low-ISO dynamic range, although having nearly a stop on the D700 at higher ISO is nice as well. Being able to pull so much shadow detail back with the D800 changed how I used the camera.<br /><br />The test that convinced me ...</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't look at tests, I look with my own eyes :) None of the pictures posted above - which were all shot in high contrast situations - would have taken benefitted from a camera with an even larger dynamic. Most of the time I don't open up the shadows completely because then the picture looks flat. Besides, a truly high contrast situation asks for other technique than simply moving the shadow slider.</p> <p>People - not necessarily you - buy into new things in the hopes of getting better results, yet they often do so before mastering the elementary pieces of good photographs: composition, light and post processing, none of which are camera dependent.</p> <p><a href=" of my very first pictures</a> still stands to this day, and it was taken with a simple compact camera. A more fancy body would not have added much value, I believe.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>I never worried about the D700 up to about ISO 800, because it didn't seem to have <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D700___963_483_441" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">much of an effect</a> on noise/dynamic range. Even though the D800/D810 are appreciably better than the D700 at high ISO, I'm far keener to keep it down at the minimum so I've got the maximum flexibility for post-processing. The D700 still offers several stops-worth of tweaking unless the ISO is high, but the D8x0, D6x0, D750 and DX bodies since the D7000 are almost ISO-less in that dynamic range keeps increasing at low ISO. </p> </blockquote> <p>Let's be honest, all these cameras do the same thing, except for resolution, which is meaningless for web use.</p> <p>With proper exposure, the d700 is clean till iso 3200. I don't see the newer bodies having any significant advantage. Keep in mind that iso does nothing to improve the <em>quality</em> of light.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>The biggest difference I've seen between Nikons has been the amount of default sharpening required on the D700 (which has a very strong low-pass filter) and the dynamic range that the newer sensors can capture, which means I can radically tweak the highlight/shadow reponse...</p> </blockquote> <p>To my eyes, the 5dmkii was sharper, probably due to higher resolution, but the d700 immediately struck me with larger dynamic range and more reliable metering, which is a boon outdoors. <br /> <br /> On both cameras, at low ISO, you can fully open up the shadows without visible degradation. That's very impressive.<br /> Highlight recovery is more restricted. If you blow out more than one channel, recovery is futile (although canon blows out sooner).</p>

<blockquote> <p>i would think you could get there with just two lenses: an UWA zoom and a standard zoom. nikon 16-35 VR + tamron 28-75/2.8 might be all the kit you'd need</p> </blockquote> <p>I have the 20-35/2.8 which is a solid performer.<br /> <br /> Some shots ask for light compression, like <a href=" </a>and <a href=" one</a>. That's when I take out the 50. It's a bit close to 35mm but the gap between 35 and 85 is often too much (remember you don't have the same freedom of movement in the mountains as you have in the street).<br /> <br /> Alternatively, I was thinking of using a 20-35/2.8 and 35-70/2.8 combination or just a 24-70/2.8, but carrying those doesn't seem like the right package for mountaineering, does it.</p> <blockquote> <p>You could also consider getting a Nikon 28-200 as a lightweight zoom option.</p> </blockquote> <p>If the 24-85 is unexciting, how can the 28-200 be any better? :)</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Unless you correct specifically for the one shot, I doubt any automated solution will be perfect - distortion is zoom and focal length-dependent, and sample-dependent, so there are a lot of variables to handle.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly my point for being wary of distorted lenses. </p> <blockquote> <p>I've never thought in-camera is the place for getting subtle tonality right, but that might be because I'm no good at it...</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <p>No I meant in post. There's more to color tonality than white balance. There's camera calibration in ps camera raw, color channels, saturation/vibrance/clarity... </p>

<blockquote> <p>While it's a bit more of an issue on older cameras with lower resolution (speaking as a former D700 owner), distortion doesn't bother me much. Nikon correct it themselves in in-camera JPEGs, you can correct it manually in Photoshop, and DxO fixes it automatically (unless you tell in not to). <br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Does auto-correction in ps camera raw remove all distortion or just reduce it?<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Very nice images (though they might be a little oversharpened in the Flickr preview); I envy you the fitness level to clamber up there!<br /><br> <br> Yeah it's quite a climb but the views are worth it (I haven't set any sharpening parameters on flickr). <br> </p> </blockquote> <p>A random question: how do people set the <strong>color channels</strong> on a nikon d700? I find the greens usually oversaturated. Compared to canon, the overal contrast and saturation is lower, and colors are cooler by default.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> I've returned from a trip up the mountains and have uploaded some pictures. <br> <br /><a href="https://www.flickr.com/gp/60805454@N03/ey5GpB" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Photostream here.</a><br /><a href=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Favorite shot.</a></p> <p>A few observations:<br /><br />- The d700 is a marvellous machine. However, it's pretty big and heavy, even with a good strap. <br> - Most pictures have been taken with wide angle. Not a single shot of 135mm or more made the final cut.<br> - If you want to make it back down the mountain before the final cable car or boat crossing, you can't lose time with too many lens or filter changes. Therefore, I am considering a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 but am worried about its severe distortion.</p>

<p>Hi,</p> <p>I've just returned from a trip up the mountains and have uploaded some pictures. <br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/gp/60805454@N03/ey5GpB">Photostream here.</a><br /> <a href=" shot.</a></p> <p>A few observations:<br> <br /> - The d700 is a marvellous machine. However, it's big and heavy, even with a good strap. I am considering a mirrorless body but am afraid it will cost more and/or be of lesser quality.</p> <p>- Most pictures have been taken with wide angle. Even though I had lenses up to 300mm, not a single shot of 135mm or more made the final cut. Of the 400 picture taken, I selected 20 favorites:</p> <ul> <li>40% were taken ultra wide (20-24mm)</li> <li>30% normal wide (28-35mm)</li> <li>20% normal (50mm)</li> <li>10% portrait (85-105mm)<br /><br /></li> </ul> <p>- Changing lenses while hiking is annoying, in particular if you also need to change filters (a seperate filter set for every lens is costly). If you want to make it back down the mountain before the final cable car or boat crossing, you can't lose time with too many lens or filter changes. Therefore, I am considering a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 but am worried about its severe distortion (the lenses I was using are almost distortion-free).</p>

<p>Got to try out the newswear pack. Fantastic. Compact and lightweigth, yet stores more gear than bigger waist packs. Neither does it stand out as much as regular waist packs. The belt is stripped to its minimum: just two pouches and three zippers (for filters or a wallet). <br> <br /> I can store a 70-300 + 50 + 24 and filters in those two pouches without feeling overly encumbered. In any case, it feels more comfortable than a belt with separate lens cases.</p> <p>I am surprised though that the belt isn't broader. I also expected the belt to be padded but it isn't (the lens pouches are, but only lightly padded).</p> <p>Time will tell. I'll brief you once I get back from a few days travel.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Has anyone travelled with this Newswear Small Fanny Pack ? I'm looking for a small fanny pack to carry a 70-200mm and a 50mm.<br> Is it comfortable to carry under the weight of a 70-200mm? <br> <br> <img src="http://www.newswear.com/images/Small_fanny_pack-f1.jpg" alt="" width="470" height="337" /></p>

<p>To fit a nikon 80-200mm f2.8 and a 50mm, nothing more.</p> <p>Most packs are either very small (not for photography) or very big (those that fit entire cameras).</p> <p>Ideally, I'd want something around 8" broad x 8" high x 4" deep (internal size).</p> <p>So basically a fanny pack that fits two lensens, nothing else (or a single lens and a flash).</p>

<p>For landscapes, the large aperture gets lost and the inability to zoom is very restrictive. I travelled with a 135 prime, which was fine, but a zoom, even a slower zoom, would have been more useful.</p> <blockquote> <p>I had been considering the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF/ED two-ring but our threads here on it say it is not that good wide open; is too heavy (3.5 lbs); and despite the "professional" metal shell and the nice crinkle paint job is not well made. </p> </blockquote> <p>It's as sharp as every other pro tele, it's less heavy than the 70-200/2.8 VR i & ii and the paint job is a non-issue.<br> I prefer the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF to a 135 prime.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>A new crop-sensor camera from either maker with the appropriate lenses will probably take better photos than something as old as a D700 or 5D Mk I. Yes, you'll be able to get shallower DoF, but you'll be able to shoot in way lower light with a newer camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>I doubt it.<br> Being able to shoot in lower light doesn't make better photos. I guess you haven't owned a full frame body, have you.</p> <p>Besides, a d700 or 5dmkii take excellent pictures, better than the latest toy camera, and deliver clean pictures up to iso 2200 - 3200. </p>

<blockquote> <p>What I also realise is that personally 20mm isnt wide enough and that has now justified in my mind the planned purchase of the 14-24 :D</p> </blockquote> <p>14-24 in favour of 20-35... then you might miss a 35. </p>

<p>The 24 afd is a great lens. Mine is tack sharp, even wide open (corners at f2.8 aren't in focus anyway). Acceptable fall-off, low distortion, but flares easily.</p> <p>You won't find a better performer in this price range that is so small and pleasant to carry.</p> <p> </p>

<p>That lens is a terrific performer except it's known to shift focus when close focusing at 200mm f2.8 .<br /> <br /> The remedy is straightforward: either focus further away, zoom out a bit, or stop down.</p>

<blockquote> <p>And the 24 f/2.8 has little distortion?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, very little. Almost as little as the 24mm f/1.4 afs.<br /> That's half or less than the zooms you suggest.</p> <p>Just for reference:<br /> http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/551-nikkorafd2428ff?start=1<br /> http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=1<br /> http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/770-nikkorafd2485ff?start=1</p> <p>Anyway, let's get back on topic. I was asking about a tele zoom, not about wide angle.</p> <p>I've heard galen rowell did well with just a 24mm and a 80-200mm.</p>

<p>Distortion - or the lack thereof - is everything to wide angle.</p> <p>Correcting distortion means less corner sharpness, means losing wide angle, means less overall crispness etc.<br> I agree that a small level of distortion is acceptable, but the lenses you mention distort heavily towards the wide end. So much that I consider them 28-XX zooms rather than 24-XX. </p> <p>You always notice a distorted image, no matter the subject. If you don't, well, I guess you haven't had the pleasure of experiencing a distortion free lens.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The kind of activity for which a lens as the 24-120VR or 24-85VR make truckloads of sense. </p> </blockquote> <p>These lenses are loaded with distortion beyond the means of auto-correction. </p> <blockquote> <p>I'd use set of primes </p> </blockquote> <p>Well, it's either 24mm + 50mm or 24mm + 80-200mm. A third lens doesn't fit in my bag, no matter how small it is.</p>

<p>Hi,</p> <p>I'll be travelling to Switzerland for a few days and am looking for a tele zoom for day hikes. I'll be hiking <em>without</em> gear (luggage stays at the hotel).</p> <p>I currently have the excellent 80-200m f2.8 and will be carrying a d700 with 24mm prime. I wonder if that tele isn't too much for 8 hour walks.</p> <p>I'm loath to pay much for a lens I'll be using just for a few days. The 70-300 VR being way too expensive, my other options are limited to either the <strong>Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 D or Nikon 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5.</strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong><br /></strong>Which is the better lens, which is the better pair?</p> <ul> <li>24mm + 35-135mm<br />or</li> <li>24mm + 80-200mm</li> </ul> <p>Thanks</p>