hique

The Fm-10 is really crappy :/ Construction, viewfinder and everything.

All the other Nikon manual focus cameras are so great and most is so cheap that I would never even consider a Fm-10.

Get an used Fm-2, Fm, F-3, FG, FE or FA instead.

No, there is nothing missing. You can upsize a 6MP to 25MP and still look ""good"". But remember, you may think it's good but others may disagree.

Anyway, these DSLR have such a good image quality that upsizing a lot is really fine.

But it won't be better than a native 25MP digital back, of course ;)

Cheers

Marko and Bruce: I think maybe the key is here. Maybe the flashing RGB alert was indicating clipping somewhere but the G and B channel were not clipped, for instance.

I will try to re-do the test.

Carsten: So in order to have a better RAW flashing highlights in camera I would have to lower it's contrast? Is that it?

Thank you all for the help so far.

Yaron, I guess in this case it has little to do with monitor calibration. I am evaluating these results according to the highlights alerts and histograms on the AdobeCameraRaw and D200.

At the end of it I think it's a matter of the D200 being really conservative in this matter, what can be bad.

For instance, in this example I pointed, I would discard the #2 picture because the camera said that it probably lost detail in highlights. But, after using ACR exposure, the #2 became the best of them with more shadow detail AND highlight detail.

Tristan,

The constrast is default (normal) and the format is RAW.

What I questioned is the way that the camera histogram induces the user to believe that the blown-out highlights are forever lost when they are still in the file.

Although in teory the compressed NEF would lose information, I could not perceive any diference.

Another question: Would the Compressed NEF slow down a D200?

I just shoot two test images of a very contrasty scene.

I understand the principle of overexposing the most I can without blowing the

highlights in order to have more tonal information in the RAW image.

So my pictures came out like this:

#1: Dark but didn't blow the highlights (according to D200 and ACR histograms).

#2: Well exposed but with blown highlights (also according to both histograms).

But guess what, changing the exposure in AdobeCameraRaw allowed me to get the

highlights back from the image #2. The highlights were blown but it was

recoverable.

The blown-highlight-version became the best one, with more shadow information.

So I guess the blinking highlights and histograms on the D200 are not that

real. I had concluded that the blinking highlights meant lost information

there. But it didn't.

Is this normal?

Cheers

So with an Ais lens you can set the aperture with the aperture ring?

Is there any way to set aperture with aperture ring with AF-D lenses?

I think there is almost no learning curve.

I just came from a F-3 camera, although I used a F-70 in the past. I had no problem with the D200.

Just read half the manual and already was perfectly used to it.

The D200 has a VERY good interface. Really. Really good ergonomy also.

Everything seems logical to me with this camera. Very easy to use. Anyone that can use a computer can scroll through the menus easily.

My only complaints would be the canon-like-aperture-dial. I think it's a much better alternative to choose apertures with an aperture ring, but it's clear that the industry thinks otherwise. Still, turning a dial does not seem the best alternative.

Another "problem" would be the meter indicator in the viewfinder showing negatives values to the right and positive values to the left. I thought it was a convention to have negatives number to the left of Zero.

Still a terrific camera. Very easy to use.

Cheers

I would bet that clouds and haze help the best sunsets.

But I mean haze...light haze...not overcast weather

Thin clouds are nice too. Eventually with a thin-clouds-day there is probably some haze in the atmosphere and you can get pink clouds with orange horizon...or something like this

I also really enjoy what I call "rainbow-weather-light". It happens when it's close to sunset time and rained a little time before. When the skies begin to clear you can get dark clouds, very dense and yellow light and even rainbows :)

That's my opinion.

Good luck

Jim,

When you say you have your film written to a CD, you should be more especific. Actually what the lab is doing is 'scanning' the film.

It all comes down to what scanner the lab is using versus. the scanner that you would use.

A lab with a Frontier Scanner gives really nice results.

Its nice to see that the 20mm is worth keeping with a DSLR.

I reallly enjoy cuba and it's people. They have a good powerful pride and cultural identity.

Uhlig, That makes sense...I guess :)

Although the early replys from our fellow members indicated that what I was writing didn't make sense, I think there is so possible logic in that.

I know the formula and what the F: number means. But as far as we are talking about light levels and not focal length and mm's, the Nikon F-mount seemed to be F:1.

As our other fellow suggests, that behavior should not be the same within other lighting situations. Isn't it?

I would still think that some relation can be achieved. That way I could meter the light with no lens attached (not sure why I would want that, though. Lol).

Thanks for the responses so far.

Hmm...I see

But I thought it was such a coincidence to be F:1, a special number, that I concluded that it was correct.

My camera is a manual one with no eletronic contacts, although I know there are mechanic contacts.

So you are saying that if I make other tests the camera without the lens it will meter differently, not as if it were an f:1 aperture?

Anyway I will do some futher testings. I will share it with you later.

Cheers

I was just doing some testing with a 35mm reflex with no lens.

Metering the light from a plain surface with no lens gave me the

exposure time of 1/250.

Metering the same surface with a 35mm lens gave the exposure time of

1/30 with an aperture of F:2.8

So I could conclude that using a camera with no lens gives us an f:

number of 1.

Is this correct? An F:1 aperture would allow as much light to reach

the film as if there was no lens at all? If so, Wow...that's a lot of

light :)

Cheers

"The prices of Nikon digital cameras are very closely the same pretty much everywhere"

Not here. In Brazil a D200 would cost about 3200USD. And that is the price on a importer store.

Buying from THE ONLY autorized dealer (that's a shame. Only one place that sell Nikon gear and they don't even accept the warranty from products bought abroad) would probably cost even more.

For instance the same scanner that at B&H costs 2000USD costs 6300USD around here!

That's why BH is so popular around here :)

First of all, great shot :)

I don't think that the Zoo has any right over the picture. You are the author of this image and are responsible for it. If you prefer you can destroy/delete the image. They don't hold no rights over the image.

But as you were shooting on a private location, you can't publish/sell it either.

I think the best thing to do is to donate the image to them, since they are a non-profit org.

Maybe you could show your interest in donating the image and hope for an act of good faith on their part, allowing you to use the image comercially. Who knows?

Good luck and congratulations for the picture :)

"as I understand it, we have to reboot the machine when the full-frame scanning is done"

Not with Frontier. It is actualy very simple. The operator just have to access one or two menu itens and control the magnification. It is not as fast as the default, but a dedicated operator can do it without any problems or delays.

Cheers.