# Nikon SLR/D-SLR fans



## PCC (Dec 1, 2013)

I guess that you can say that I'm a Nikon person, having owned a black Nikon FE2 since 1983. That lead to an older Nikkormat Ftn and a beat up Nikon F with the Ftn finder. Those older mechanical cameras were sold off years ago, though I really miss the F. About nine years ago I joined the digital revolution and bought a D70. That camera was a game changer for me as it allowed me to shoot pictures without worry about "burning film" and I got used to the fact that I could adjust the ISO as needed. My buddy sold me his old Nikon F4s with lenses shortly after and this prompted me to give the old FE-2 to my nephew who was taking photography classes in JC. Along with that camera went a nice AI modified early 35mm f/2. I'm tempted to ask him if I can have it back, but, that'll probably upset my wife. Just this past week I purchased a D610 and this has gotten me to start looking at the world through a viewfinder again. Before that I had started to use the camera built into my iPhone 4, primarily due to convenience since it was always in my pocket. I've learned to hate the barrel distortion on the sides of pictures taken with it.

Lenses: I have a few lenses in my kit right now. The 18-70 kit lens that came with the D70; the 70-200 f/2.8 VR that I bought from a different buddy; the 70-210 f/4 that came with the F4s; the AI modified 55 f/3.5 Micro that I bought from my cousin many years ago along with its companion M2 extension tube; the 28-80mm cheapo Nikkor that was given to me; and the other lens that came with the F4s - a 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5. I'm currently considering an AF wide angle zoom or just a manual focus 20mm f/2 which really doesn't need AF since it has much more DOF.

I use my cameras for everything, particularly taking family photos, but, I love taking macro photos as well. I really like experimenting with different setups to see what I can do to get more magnification, more DOF, or just more distance to the subject (mounting the 70-200 onto the M2 makes it a nice long reach macro lens, especially at 200mm, but, makes the focus range very limited, something like five to ten feet).

Anyone else a fan of Nikon SLRs/D-SLRs?


----------



## Steve K (Dec 14, 2013)

I've got a D40x, purchased 5 or 6 years ago, and a new D5200. Switching from film to digital was worthwhile, and digital tech has certainly advanced enough that I don't feel like I've given up anything. 

I had been using Canon film cameras, so there were no qualms about getting rid of my old lenses. I haven't bought many lenses, and probably won't need to. My main lens is a 18-135/f3.5-5.6. I've got a 70-300mm for aircraft and birds. The third and last lens is an older 50mm f1.8 lens for portraits, which is nice, but requires manual focusing. It does make me miss the focusing aids that were common in my old film cameras.

I do miss the large apertures of my old lenses. Are the new lenses slower just to save money on glass? Practically speaking, the new cameras are pretty sensitive and I can bump up the ISO setting enough to compensate for the slower lenses, so it's not a real problem.


----------



## greenlight (Dec 14, 2013)

Steve K said:


> I do miss the large apertures of my old lenses. Are the new lenses slower just to save money on glass? Practically speaking, the new cameras are pretty sensitive and I can bump up the ISO setting enough to compensate for the slower lenses, so it's not a real problem.



iSO compensation is not really the point of fast glass, it's the difference in picture quality you get with a prime lens.


----------



## martinaee (Jan 3, 2014)

I was about to say you should maybe upgrade at this point from the D70, but I read you got a D610. Nice!

I myself use a D800 and D90 and still have my D50 too! 

I will never get rid of the D50 as it has the electronic shutter. I think you can sync it over 1/500th of a sec or maybe even way shorter if I'm remembering correctly. Good for catching really fast movement up close with flashes. It's nice as you don't have to have super expensive strobes that dump their light ultra fast and you can just use whatever nikon speedlights or other brand. In some ways I miss the ccd sensors. Everything is cmos now.

I actually don't have a 70-200 right now. Have used the latest Sigma and also the fantastic new Tamron 70-200 vc several times, but am still taking my time considering whether to spend the extra grand or so for the Nikon. I know it's dumb to wait, but probably in several years (could be more) Nikon will release a new 70-200. Although their current version is so good it may be a while. The Tamron definitely has the best stabilization by far right now in a 70-200 2.8 . It's crazy how well it works.


----------



## Redhat703 (Jan 3, 2014)

I've been using a D200 (updated from a D70) with a 50mm 1.4, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.4, 80-200mm 2.8, and few more lenses.
For film, I still keep some bodies F100, F80, FE, EM, FG, and F3HP and sometimes take one out to shoot film.


----------



## baker1425 (Jan 3, 2014)

I started with 35mm and got some medium format experience with a mamiya RB67 in the 1980s, and had access to a good color lab. I liked and used canon, but had better access to borrow and buy used professional nikon equipment as a teen. 

I stayed with Nikons after the digital revolution and had a D40X when I was working crime scenes at work. I bought a D3000, which is now the kids, and have a D5100. I like the ISO adjustments, and have had to get the dummies series to really learn how to use the many features that used to only be available in a color darkroom with experience. The feature that I now use the most is the HD movie feature. 

I've got the DX 18-55 and the 55-200. I'll probably try to spot a 70-300 for vacations. 

Good stuff for my speed and level, while I'd like something higher speed and lower drag, I really don't need it. Compared with the Nikkor lenses, the DX seems to be better.


----------



## will (Jan 3, 2014)

I have been using Nikons for the last 15 years or so. I started with a few film cameras - an N80, then a used N90s. I switched to a my first Nikon digital a D70s later upgrading to a D90. The D90 is my 'good' camera as it has the ability to use the old 'screw' auto focus lenses, as well as the the newer VR lenses with the built in auto focus motor. I just picked up a D3000 body for use 'knocking around' That does not have movie or a few other features that I never use on any of the cameras. I have an SB-600 flash that I use on occasion. the lenses in my bag - 18-105mm VR, 55-300mm VR, 60mm macro and a 50 mm f1.8 normal lens. I also have Sigma 600mm mirror lens, completely manual. The cameras are all refurbished units from Nikon. the price on these is just too good to pass up, The lenses are either used or refurbished. I have been fortunate in that all the cameras and lenses have performed with no problems at all


----------



## PCC (Jan 3, 2014)

The buddy that I had bought the 70-200 from has a D90. It's really nice. His camera inspired me to look for something newer. It's just taken me a few years to finally pull the trigger. At one point I actually thought about getting the D700, hoping that my wife wouldn't notice the extra zero. Before buying the D610 I had seriously considered the D800, but, I decided on the faster D610.


I recently picked up a BR-4 ring to compliment the BR-2a that I've had forever. I also picked up a PK-13 extension tube for the 55mm f/3.5 since that lens was AI modified. I've been doing a lot of macro photos lately.


----------



## Steve K (Jan 4, 2014)

greenlight said:


> iSO compensation is not really the point of fast glass, it's the difference in picture quality you get with a prime lens.



Is there a correlation between large apertures and picture quality? I would have thought that smaller apertures (or at least smaller than f1.4 or so) would be better quality. 

There's certainly less emphasis on fast lenses nowadays that there was 30 years ago. When the fastest film was 400 ASA (or ISO), then a fast lens was highly valued.


----------



## will (Jan 4, 2014)

Steve K said:


> Is there a correlation between large apertures and picture quality? I would have thought that smaller apertures (or at least smaller than f1.4 or so) would be better quality.



The aperture size will affect depth of field, the smaller the opening, the greater the depth of field, meaning more of the image will be in focus


----------



## Redhat703 (Jan 4, 2014)

Steve K said:


> Is there a correlation between large apertures and picture quality? I would have thought that smaller apertures (or at least smaller than f1.4 or so) would be better quality.
> 
> There's certainly less emphasis on fast lenses nowadays that there was 30 years ago. When the fastest film was 400 ASA (or ISO), then a fast lens was highly valued.



Your questions could lead to the two different answers:
-If you're talking about the lens, so the smaller the smallest aperture number the lens has, the better quality of pictures it would take, especially the fix (prime) lens. For example, Nikon has some fix great lens as 50mm 1.2, 1.4, 85mm 1.4, 105mm 2.8, etc.
-If you're talking about the open hole of the lens, the larger hole the lens has, the lower aperture number indicated in the lens dial, and it would make everything in focus in the picture look clear while the rest is blur (we call it the Depth Of Field DOF).


----------



## will (Jan 4, 2014)

Redhat703 said:


> -If you're talking about the lens, so the smaller the smallest aperture number the lens has, the better quality of pictures it would take, especially the fix (prime) lens. For example, Nikon has some fix great lens as 50mm 1.2, 1.4, 85mm 1.4, 105mm 2.8, etc.



While I agree that a 1.2 lens will perform better than a 1.8, the aperture number is not an indication of the quality of the lens. The number represents the amount of light the lens will pass through. If there is no resistance due to the glass in the lenses, the aperture would be 1. The smallest number I have ever seen is 1.2, meaning that some light is lost as it passes through the various lens groups. Generally, more work and better glass is used to get the number lower, allowing pictures to be taken at lower light levels.


----------



## Aperture (Jan 4, 2014)

Steve K said:


> Is there a correlation between large apertures and picture quality?


No.....


----------



## P_A_S_1 (Jan 4, 2014)

Brought a D7000 with a DX 18-200 lens as a gift for the girlfriend a while back. Since she has hardly used it but I've used it a lot, it was like a gift to myself .
I was never into photography before but this camera made me learn the basics and has gotten me to enjoy the hobby, even humped it up and down the Grand Canyon despite it's size/weight. Fun camera.


----------



## Aperture (Jan 4, 2014)

will said:


> While I agree that a 1.2 lens will perform better than a 1.8, the aperture number is not an indication of the quality of the lens. The number represents the amount of light the lens will pass through. If there is no resistance due to the glass in the lenses, the aperture would be 1. The smallest number I have ever seen is 1.2, meaning that some light is lost as it passes through the various lens groups. Generally, more work and better glass is used to get the number lower, allowing pictures to be taken at lower light levels.



Only one statement is correct: "the aperture number is not an indication of the quality of the lens", so no need to further explain how wrong the first part of that sentence is 

F stops represent the physical opening of the aperture blades of a lens and how much light can pass trough the lens in a perfect world. The actual amount of light that passes through a lens in the real world depends on the amount of glass elements (egg amount of air to glass transitions), coatings (improves transparency efficiency of the air to glass transitions), quality of the used glass, quality of workmanship, etc and is expressed in T stops. The delta between the two is the amount of light that got lost.

As an example my muse of 2013, the Nikkor 35/1.4G, of course it's F stop is f/1.4 but it's T stop 1.7:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-35mm-f14G

I have a couple of f/1.2 lenses, these are very fast for common lenses but there are plenty faster lenses out there like the Leica 50/0.95, the Voigtlander f/0.95 lenses for MFT but you can go even faster when you go for some rare and exotic lenses like the Rayxar 65mm f/0.75, etc.


----------



## SemiMan (Jan 4, 2014)

will said:


> While I agree that a 1.2 lens will perform better than a 1.8, the aperture number is not an indication of the quality of the lens. The number represents the amount of light the lens will pass through. If there is no resistance due to the glass in the lenses, the aperture would be 1. The smallest number I have ever seen is 1.2, meaning that some light is lost as it passes through the various lens groups. Generally, more work and better glass is used to get the number lower, allowing pictures to be taken at lower light levels.



Nope sorry that is all wrong. F-stop is focal length divided by entrance pupil. Transmission does not play into it though effective f-stop or t-stop may be calculated.

The limits on f-stop are somewhat more practical than theoretically but less than 0.7 is extremely difficult though single element aspherics can go much lower. You can also immerse the optics for different refraction indexes which can lower the potential as well.

Semiman


----------



## Steve K (Jan 4, 2014)

Redhat703 said:


> Your questions could lead to the two different answers:
> -If you're talking about the lens, so the smaller the smallest aperture number the lens has, the better quality of pictures it would take, especially the fix (prime) lens. For example, Nikon has some fix great lens as 50mm 1.2, 1.4, 85mm 1.4, 105mm 2.8, etc.
> -If you're talking about the open hole of the lens, the larger hole the lens has, the lower aperture number indicated in the lens dial, and it would make everything in focus in the picture look clear while the rest is blur (we call it the Depth Of Field DOF).



my question was in response to Greenlight's assertion that the value of fast lenses was for their quality, and not for their ability to pass more light. You can ask him what he meant by quality.


----------



## cy (Jan 4, 2014)

my old Nikkor F1.2 50mm certain didn't take better picture than my std Nikkor F1.4 50mm len. the F1.2 however would allow a crack more light. back then we pushed tri-X for more speed. now days with super sensitive sensors .. wild ISO numbers are routine.

if OP still wants an old Nikon F ... got one available. been collecting em for years. something satisfying about having Nikon F's laying around. same for old Nikkor lens .. even the older manual focus only lens. despite not having auto focus .. could be wrong, but today's optics are no better


----------



## will (Jan 4, 2014)

I should have stated I was writing in very general terms. A 1.2 lens will perform better than a 1.8 when there is a very low level of light. You can shoot at a slightly faster speed, thus cutting down on motion blur ( lens fully open at 1.2 ) Reading this now, the lens is not performing better, rather the resulting image will be better. I also think that the glass and the coatings are at a better quality, resulting in a much higher cost. My mistake about the aperture number, I thought 1 was representative of no resistance, I guess the the number would be 0 ( ZERO )

( resistance - or - the amount of light passed through the lens )


----------



## SemiMan (Jan 4, 2014)

Resistance has nothing to do with it.


----------



## PCC (Jan 5, 2014)

cy said:


> my old Nikkor F1.2 50mm certain didn't take better picture than my std Nikkor F1.4 50mm len. the F1.2 however would allow a crack more light. back then we pushed tri-X for more speed. now days with super sensitive sensors .. wild ISO numbers are routine.
> 
> if OP still wants an old Nikon F ... got one available. been collecting em for years. something satisfying about having Nikon F's laying around. same for old Nikkor lens .. even the older manual focus only lens. despite not having auto focus .. could be wrong, but today's optics are no better


In theory, the faster lenses were nicer, quality-wise because they're more expensive to manufacture and so the manufacturer would make them to a higher quality standard, or so you would think since you're paying more for it. The reality is that each lens should be taken for its own merits and not so much compared to its faster or slower peers.

When I used the D70 the speed of the lens mattered more because of the higher noise at higher ISOs. I regularly set the ISO to 800 because the noise would go up exponentially as you went up from there. With the D610 that's not so much an issue anymore since I can shoot at ISO 6400 with about as much noise as I did with the D70 at ISO 800. I can also get rid of noise using post processing.

The older mechanical Nikons, especially the pro cameras (F and F2), are great to fondle and to take pictures with, but, I've not shot film in a very long time. There's still a roll of film in the F4 that I've loaded two or three years ago that I still need to finish off then I'll need to figure out how to get it processed. At this rate, I may never actually finish that roll and I've got three or four rolls of unused film waiting to use. 

Since the Nikon pro cameras (and a few of the non-pro cameras) have removable backs, one would think that a digital back could be made to allow these mostly obsolete cameras to have a comeback. Forget the Df with its weird ergonomics and ugly styling. Give me an F2, F3, or F4 with a digital back and I'll be happy.


----------



## will (Jan 5, 2014)

PCC said:


> There's still a roll of film in the F4 that I've loaded two or three years ago that I still need to finish off then I'll need to figure out how to get it processed. At this rate, I may never actually finish that roll and I've got three or four rolls of unused film waiting to use.



I still have a few rolls of 35mm and 120 film in the freezer. I might even have a film mailer or two around. Here is a link to a company in CA that does quality film processing

http://aandi.com/film-processing


----------



## Redhat703 (Jan 5, 2014)

Costco now still does film processing. You can ask them to scan your pics to digital files.


----------



## PCC (Jan 5, 2014)

Redhat703 said:


> Costco now still does film processing. You can ask them to scan your pics to digital files.


My local Costcos all stopped processing film last year, at least the Costcos I've been to.


----------



## Fresh Light (Jan 5, 2014)

I used to have a Nikon D50 consumer dslr. It was 6.1 MP, I believe. It took great pictures but my biggest complaint was the tiny review screen and the settings info lcd was not back lit, so taking beam shots meant using a flashlight to see how it was set. My new camera is the D3200. It's a 24.2 MP sensor. The screen is much bigger but doesn't articulate like the D5200. I thought I would end up breaking it if I got that one and it was a couple hundred more. But I'm very happy with this camera. 

The only things I wish Nikon would have built into these were:
1. WiFi built in- I think the dongle add on is cool feature to add on, but ridiculous that it sticks out so far that you cannot close the rubber access flap.
2. Touch screen like the Canon t4i/5i,SL1,D70- would add expense but I think it would make the controls simpler than holding fn keys and other buttons to change settings
3. USB 3.0- Its not like you don't use a card reader but why not have the latest connection even if it would cost a small amount more


----------



## SemiMan (Jan 5, 2014)

I did the touch screens slow for many operations when I tried it. It encourages ui growth, not ui optimization it seems. 

Semiman


----------



## Aperture (Jan 6, 2014)

To answer the OP's question; 

Yes I'm a big fan of Nikon DSLR's and Nikkor lenses but currently don't own the former since my recent switch to the Sony a7R (wanted to try something different).

Started out in 2006 with the D200 and some old consumer zoom lenses slowly building up to a month in Africa with a D300/D700 combo and the 14-400mm pro zoom quartet, sold everything for a D3s and later the D800E both used with a couple of legendary primes like the 16/3.5, 35/1.4G, 50/1.2, 200/2VR, etc. I once again sold everything but the 50/1.2, my first fast lens that took me years to master (focus on old DX viewfinders was a biatch) and appreciate, a perfect reminder of my 7 year Nikon adventure.

I like playing with light, preferably with one or several natural light sources but might on occasion throw some artificial light (like a flashlight) into the mix to spice things up a bit, below a couple from a recent canoeing trip in Sweden / Norway.

Startrails, Northern Light and the orange glow from a campfire (D800E & Samyang 14/2.8, 30 minutes on tripod)






Blue Hour, foreground lit by my buddies headlight (D800E & 35/1.4G, ISO4000 and 1/10th a second, handheld)





Glootube in the tent and painted the rest with my Surefire P2X-18650, sadly the blue hour was over for the final shot (D800E & Samyang 14/2.8, 4 minutes on tripod)


----------



## Redhat703 (Jan 6, 2014)

Beautiful pics!


----------



## P_A_S_1 (Jan 6, 2014)

Very nice pictures, especially the first one.


----------



## cy (Jan 6, 2014)

PCC said:


> Since the Nikon pro cameras (and a few of the non-pro cameras) have removable backs, one would think that a digital back could be made to allow these mostly obsolete cameras to have a comeback. Forget the Df with its weird ergonomics and ugly styling. Give me an F2, F3, or F4 with a digital back and I'll be happy.



unfortunately digital backs older pro Nikon will never happen .. Nikon would rather sell a completely new digital camera. Hasselblad took a different approach by offering a 16 megapixel digital back way back when Nikon's digital offerings were 4.1 megapixel range. 

my comment were really for old Nikkor lens which I routinely use on my ancient Nikon D2H with a whopping 4.1 meg. Nikon pro digital bodies have advantage of built in motor. allowing both AF Nikkor (no motor) and DX lens. HUGE advantage being able to use AF Nikkor lens. which costs a fraction of newer DX lens. with added bonus of being full frame, which is exactly what's needed for latest full frame Nikkor bodies.

for instance one of the most desirable of all normal lens is Nikkor 1.4 50mm ... AF Nikkor 1.4 can be found for $200 range vs $400 range for DX version F1.4 Nikkor. that's just tip of iceberg costs wise .. one can put together a butt load of AF Nikkor lens on Craigslist, etc for $500 range. that would buy 1-2 DX lens if you are lucky. if one is going full frame .. one gets to upgrade again, unless they are AF Nikkor.


----------



## Redhat703 (Jan 6, 2014)

I sold all my Nikon DX lenses and get ready to go to FX . In fact, most of my flashlight pics shown here were taken by my trusty D200 with a Nikkor 35mm F2.0.


----------



## geoturtle (Jan 13, 2014)

Hello.

I have a D40 and a gripped N90S, AF 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor, AI-S 105mm f/4 Micro Nikkor, and AF 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor. This summer I picked up and a Nikkormat FT3 with a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S Auto, Vivitar Auto 28mm f/2.5, and a Vivitar 75-205 f/3.8 "Close Focus." There's also the Minolta HiMatic 7S rangefinder I got as a birthday present about 1974.


Charlie


----------



## rexster314 (Jan 25, 2014)

Hello. I started out with a Pentax K1000 waaaay back in 1976. Other than the 5mp Sony camera in 2002, everything else has been Nikons. In order, Nikon N2020, Nikon N4004, Nikon 8008 that I used for about 10 years. Took a LOT of film through that camera. First digital camera was the Nikon 950. 2MP that cost more than that N8008. Moved on to the D70 for a year or so, got a D200. Couple years later got the D300 and thought that would be the last Nikon I'd own, but then a year after the D800 came out I couldn't stand it and got the D800. Now that's a LOT of camera. Present lenses are 70-200 2.8 VRI, 80-400 VRI, 28-70 Nikon, DX lenses 18-200VR, 12-24 WA. This will be the last camera I will have bought.


----------



## PCC (Jan 26, 2014)

Pentax K1000 - classic film camera
Nikon N2020 (AKA F501 outside of the US) - my brother had one. Early autofocus Nikon. Nice.
N4004 - no experience with this model
N8008 - my cousin had an N8008s. Very nice camera.
I've lusted after the D200 and D300, but, could never win the argument with the wife that I needed one.
The choice for me came down to the D610 or the D800 and I decided on the D610 because it fit my needs better. File sizes and slower continuous frames were enough for me to decide on the D610 instead of the D800. I don't need the larger file sizes and I sometimes use the faster frame rates so I went for the faster camera. That's also why the Df wasn't even a consideration: it's a deliberately slower camera to use.


----------



## Steve K (Jan 28, 2014)

rexster314 said:


> ...<snip>... Present lenses are 70-200 2.8 VRI, 80-400 VRI, 28-70 Nikon, DX lenses 18-200VR, 12-24 WA. This will be the last camera I will have bought.



The lenses really sound nice! The 80-400 would be quite handy at airshows! 

I'm intrigued by the possibility of it being your last camera, though. I got a Nikon D40x after decades with the same two Canon film bodies. The newer of the two bodies was developing a small crack in the plastic housing, but the older one was nearly all metal and nearly zero electronics. 

Looking at the D40x, and the recently acquired D5200, I do wonder how long the mechanical bits will hold up, how long the electronics will last, and how fast the memory cards will be obsolete. As an electrical engineer, I know that the modern I.C.'s use very small features (i.e. incredibly tiny conductors and transistors) that just wear out faster than the larger features from 20 years ago. What are the odds that my shiny D5200 will even be functional in 10 short years? And will I have replaced it in 5 years with a shinier model with a more sensitive sensor, faster shutter, better user interface, etc?? 
Does the industry ever mention stuff like this?


----------



## PCC (Jan 28, 2014)

Steve K said:


> Looking at the D40x, and the recently acquired D5200, I do wonder how long the mechanical bits will hold up, how long the electronics will last, and how fast the memory cards will be obsolete. As an electrical engineer, I know that the modern I.C.'s use very small features (i.e. incredibly tiny conductors and transistors) that just wear out faster than the larger features from 20 years ago. What are the odds that my shiny D5200 will even be functional in 10 short years? And will I have replaced it in 5 years with a shinier model with a more sensitive sensor, faster shutter, better user interface, etc??
> Does the industry ever mention stuff like this?


I've had my D70 for about 9.5 years, now. Still works fine. I've rolled the counter once (the picture name numbers reached 9999 and went to 0001). I wanted newer, faster, and larger (full frame) so I bought a new camera. In theory, unless your D5200 has a mechanical or electrical failure, there should be no real reason for replacing it as megapixels above about 16MP just isn't needed. Your D5300 has a lot of features that should hold you over for awhile. What more can they put into these cameras to make them work any better than what is available today? More speed, video, and WiFi are about the only things I can see upgrading for, but, would you really use them?


----------



## Steve K (Jan 28, 2014)

When I was considering the D5200, I was considering getting a body that would let me change the ground glass. I miss the focusing aids of my old film Canons. Sometimes the Nikon D40x just didn't know what to focus on when things were changing fast, and it would have been simpler doing it by hand. However, judging the focus on a plain ground glass is just not very precise. Only the pro level bodies let you change the ground glass, and I wasn't prepared to pay that sort of money. The extra focusing zones of the D5200 help, but I've still run into situations where it focuses on the wrong things.

I do like the HD video capability of the D5200. Very handy. 

What would I still want? I could use a RF remote shutter. Especially one that would let you pre-focus on the subject (IIRC). At airshows, I like to hold the camera up on a monopod to get a higher viewpoint. I just use the timer to trigger the shutter now.


----------



## will (Jan 28, 2014)

This is a somewhat negative post about the newer Nikons. I bought a new N80 around 12 years ago. This is a film camera. I still have it , but do not use it because I switched to DSLRs - I bought a used D70s about 7 years ago and recently a great D90 - my primary camera these days. All these cameras work great, but the problem that has started to occur with the N80 and the D70s is that the bodies have become 'sticky', This is the rubberized coating that has replaced the old leatherette coverings on the bodies. There are various posts all over the internet about fixing this. The most popular seems to be to rub the coating with alcohol. I have ordered a specialized product which claims to remove this sticky feeling. Apparently this coating starts to break down over time. 

I also have an N90s with a data back, film camera as well. The back got so sticky. I removed the coating completely with lots of rubbing with alcohol. This left a really shiny finish on the plastic. 

I wonder if the other camera manufactures have this problem as well.


----------



## rexster314 (Jan 31, 2014)

RE: sticky feeling of the camera bodies. The D300 I have had since 2006 when they first came out. So 7 1/2 years of use. The rubbery/leathery material is still in great shape, is not peeling. This camera has been in salty air environments more than I can count, hot car trunks, wet hands, you name it. The paint has rubbed off the bottom of the MB D10 grip but that's about all.


----------



## will (Jan 31, 2014)

rexster314 said:


> RE: sticky feeling of the camera bodies. The D300 I have had since 2006 when they first came out. So 7 1/2 years of use. The rubbery/leathery material is still in great shape, is not peeling. This camera has been in salty air environments more than I can count, hot car trunks, wet hands, you name it. The paint has rubbed off the bottom of the MB D10 grip but that's about all.



I don't know if it is due to time or the environment. If you google sticky nikons - there are lots of hits. Nikon will replace the parts, but it is expensive. I don't know if it affects all, or just some. I have mine stored in a camera backpack, maybe if they were open to the air, it would not happen.


----------



## CarvingEnsos (Feb 1, 2014)

Just got my first dslr, a nikon d3100. Came with the 18-55 kit, also have the 55-300 dx, and just ordered the 35mm 1.8 prime. Pretty happy with the kit lense but it'll be nice to shoot wide open and experiment with bokeh and low light shoots. The telephoto seems slow and dull. Ordered filters, another sd card and a shoulder sling strap also. Oh well, won't be buying that zl 18650, not that I could find it instock anywhere anyways...

Looking forward to some walking around Barcelona with the prime.


----------



## ChrisEdu (Feb 11, 2014)

I'm a D300 user, along with a Contax 35mm camera and having previously owned a Bronica ETRSi medium format set-up.

I shoot lots of different subjects, including commercial shoots for promotions, school proms, motor sport, pet portraits, etc...

Studio wise, I have a large collection of Elinchrom kit, monoblocs and power pack, various backgrounds, stands, still life equipment, etc...


----------



## PCC (Feb 14, 2014)

Just picked up a WU-1B for the D610. I bought it mainly for posting images on forums as using my iPhone leaves a lot to be desired, but, using the DSLR can be such a pain to transfer the data since I primarily use an iPad. My PC stays shut down for the most part during the week and it takes a lot of time to boot it up then sign on so getting the data off the D610 is difficult at best. Doing so using the WU-1B and a free iPad app it's Apple simple.


----------



## vicali (Feb 17, 2014)

I started with a film Nikon back when I got my first real job . It was a F65 (N65US) and it came with a kit lens and a 70-300 zoom. That lasted while I figured out what the buttons did and how to use it.

Upgraded to a D70s when I could and have gathered a few more lenses; 12-24, nifty 50, got some pelican cases and tripods and had a good time taking photos. 

We've just had our second little one and needed a better family camera- of course it's going to be a Nikon so we bought a D3100. 

I've been impressed with every Nikon I've had.


----------



## EV_007 (Mar 23, 2014)

My first digital was a Canon G3. Now I use a Nikon D600 as a DSLR option.


----------



## PCC (Apr 1, 2014)

I made the mistake of walking into a large camera store near my work today. They had a few Nikon F2A's there for $100 as-is. Tested two of them for function and they appear sound. Damn, now it want one! I've always had a soft spot for the F2 since I was 12 or so. 

MUST. NOT. THINK. ABOUT. NIKON. F2!


----------



## Steve K (Apr 2, 2014)

PCC said:


> I made the mistake of walking into a large camera store near my work today. They had a few Nikon F2A's there for $100 as-is. Tested two of them for function and they appear sound. Damn, now it want one! I've always had a soft spot for the F2 since I was 12 or so.
> 
> MUST. NOT. THINK. ABOUT. NIKON. F2!



If it makes you feel any better, I went through the same thing with bicycles that I wanted when I was young. When one popped up for sale in excellent condition, I bought it... and have been happy with the purchase since then. It's sooo shiny and cool! 

I'd say buy the F2A and give it a good home. You'll save it from a potentially horrible fate, and you'll have scratched that itch. The worse case scenario is that you sell it to some other Nikon fan at a loss.


----------



## PCC (Apr 2, 2014)

Yeah, but, that'll make two film cameras that I won't use much, if at all. With bicycles, you have the option of riding a classic steel frame bike with old school shifters and brakes, a manly man's ride, or a modern carbon fiber wonder bike with brifters and dual pivot brakes that'll stop you on a dime with one finger, and you'll be happy either way. With cameras, especially when choosing between film or digital, it's completely one-sided: the digital wins for speed, simplicity, ease of use, frame count (36 exposure roll vs 64GB for 1000+ pictures shooting RAW), and a few other things my sleep deprived brain cannot muster at the moment.


----------



## Steve K (Apr 2, 2014)

for me, the cure is to look around at all of the parts and things that are already cluttering up my space. The urge to buy something else is quickly squashed.


----------



## PCC (Apr 3, 2014)

Envision me standing in my garage looking at 9 bicycles, assorted car parts, assorted R/C cars, fishing rods, flashlights in various states of disrepair, a miniature mill, tabletop lathe, with a D610 over one shoulder and an F4s in my left hand taking a deep breath and letting out a sigh...


----------



## KNaB (Apr 3, 2014)

I just bought my first, a Nikon d5200. I'm still tinkering and learning when I get the time. Also picked up the Nikkor 105 mm micro lens and a 12-24 1.4


----------



## Steve K (Apr 3, 2014)

KNaB said:


> I just bought my first, a Nikon d5200. I'm still tinkering and learning when I get the time. Also picked up the Nikkor 105 mm micro lens and a 12-24 1.4



mmmmm.... a 12-24 f1.4 would be nice too!


----------



## Steve K (Apr 3, 2014)

PCC said:


> Envision me standing in my garage looking at 9 bicycles, assorted car parts, assorted R/C cars, fishing rods, flashlights in various states of disrepair, a miniature mill, tabletop lathe, with a D610 over one shoulder and an F4s in my left hand taking a deep breath and letting out a sigh...



okay, I appreciate that... and I feel better.. I have 8 bicycles. 

Can I sell you any vintage bike bits? SunTour derailleurs? Brooks Swift saddle with titanium rails? NOS Detto shoes with oak soles? 
But I really do love the shiny old bikes; polished aluminum and leather, waxed paint and chrome. Does it get any better?


----------



## PCC (Apr 3, 2014)

We need to start a classic bicycles thread! LOL! I need to take more photos of my '86 Colnago International with full first generation Campy Chorus components. It's a neo-retro so it's not true to the era (modern saddle, modern seatpost, modern wheels, compact cranks, 20 speeds) but it rides like a dream.

Back on topic. I have one less lens as of today. Gave the 28-80 mm to my daughter's school to use with their D70s. They only had a 50mm f/1.8D to use with it and the 28-80 was a freebie (okay, okay, I spent $3 buying a reproduction Nikon lens cap off the 'Bay for it). Guess I'll start using the 35-70 and hunt for a 20mm f/2.8 AI. Don't really need AF at that focal length.


----------



## Steve K (Apr 4, 2014)

PCC said:


> We need to start a classic bicycles thread! LOL! I need to take more photos of my '86 Colnago International with full first generation Campy Chorus components. It's a neo-retro so it's not true to the era (modern saddle, modern seatpost, modern wheels, compact cranks, 20 speeds) but it rides like a dream.



There is a web site with a Google group that started as an e-mail list that deals with "vintage lightweights", although anything newer than '82 or '83 is considered too new and fancy to be discussed. 
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/
I've kept my classics equipped with 5 or 6 speed freewheels and 42/52 cranks for those equipped with all Campy gear. Other bikes are more practical, with old SunTour and Sugino stuff that provides low gears. 
Fun to ride and to play with. 

My cameras have always been in support of other interests, so I've never gotten emotionally involved in the same way. Yeah.. it was a bit traumatic to get rid of the film cameras that I'd had for 20 years or more, but I've been happy with the change to digital.


----------



## MBentz (Apr 13, 2014)

I'm just now getting back into photography after a break that lasted a few years. I slowly worked my way up from a D40 to the wonderful D200, which I had for some time before stepping up to the D600. I had to sell it and all my other gear to pay some bills a while back. I'm at a point now where I can afford to jump back into the game, but with a limited budget. I recently acquired a mint D2X with lots of life left on the shutter. I'm primarily a low ISO shooter, or else I would have given the D7K a more serious look. I've got a 12-24 f4 lens on the way, and now I'm trying to decide on an older 80-200 f2.8, or the wonderful 180mm prime. Leaning towards the prime at the moment, and filling in the mid-range with an older 35-70 2.8D.

Hopefully in another two to three years, the D3s will be below the $1k mark! I have to admit, the Fuji X system looks very nice, though.


----------



## PCC (Apr 25, 2014)

Going on a somewhat related rant about Nikon's mirrorless cameras, the Nikon 1 series: I believe that they've made a large mistake going with the 1" sensor that they've done. Why in the world would they go with such a small sensor? They've alienated folks looking for a large sensor camera like some of the newer offerings from manufacturers like Fujifilm. Nikon Rumors has a comment about a rumored D2300 camera, a mirrorless (presumably) DX factor camera that uses Nikon F-mount lenses. What Nikon should have done was to make the Nikon 1 use a DX sensor to begin with and retain the shorter lens to film distance like they had done with the 1. Sell a separate adapter to allow AF (and even MF) lenses to be used and they'd have a winner on their hands. Yes, I know, they went with the smaller sensor to allow for a smaller camera system. Maybe a Nikon 2 series with DX sensor? Even better, make the Nikon 2 series lenses with an image circle large enough to allow a larger FX sensor and a Nikon 3 series camera with full frame sensor.


----------



## PCC (Aug 25, 2014)

Recently decided to try out using the intervalometer feature on the D610. Punch in the interval then the duration and the camera does the rest. Took a photo every ten seconds for fifteen minutes. At 30 FPS, you get three seconds of video doing this (5 minutes gives you 30 frames which gives you one second of video). Turned out pretty good taking time lapse photos of clouds drifting over San Francisco.

On a related note, bigC gave me an old tripod last year and it turned out to be a Bogen 3046 made by Manfrotto. It also has a 3063 fluid head with a broken lever. Works just fine after figuring out what all the knobs and switches do. Hoping to use it to shoot some video with the D610 this year.


----------



## SemiMan (Aug 27, 2014)

Keep in mind that's a mechanical shutter. Nice to play with but not intended for lots of slow month work.


----------



## Str8stroke (Aug 27, 2014)

Same here. except for the D5200 part. I am looking to buy a new Nikon Next month. Baby on the way. The D40x has served me well. I need one that does video & pics. I am a huge Nikon fan. I find them easier for me (tech challenged) to use. I also would like it to connect to my PC via wifi and upload the pics. Any of the pros have a suggestion as to what kinda Nikon I can get? 




Steve K said:


> I've got a D40x, purchased 5 or 6 years ago, and a new D5200. Switching from film to digital was worthwhile, and digital tech has certainly advanced enough that I don't feel like I've given up anything.
> 
> I had been using Canon film cameras, so there were no qualms about getting rid of my old lenses. I haven't bought many lenses, and probably won't need to. My main lens is a 18-135/f3.5-5.6. I've got a 70-300mm for aircraft and birds. The third and last lens is an older 50mm f1.8 lens for portraits, which is nice, but requires manual focusing. It does make me miss the focusing aids that were common in my old film cameras.
> 
> I do miss the large apertures of my old lenses. Are the new lenses slower just to save money on glass? Practically speaking, the new cameras are pretty sensitive and I can bump up the ISO setting enough to compensate for the slower lenses, so it's not a real problem.


----------



## Overclocker (Aug 27, 2014)

PCC said:


> Going on a somewhat related rant about Nikon's mirrorless cameras, the Nikon 1 series: I believe that they've made a large mistake going with the 1" sensor that they've done. Why in the world would they go with such a small sensor? They've alienated folks looking for a large sensor camera like some of the newer offerings from manufacturers like Fujifilm. Nikon Rumors has a comment about a rumored D2300 camera, a mirrorless (presumably) DX factor camera that uses Nikon F-mount lenses. What Nikon should have done was to make the Nikon 1 use a DX sensor to begin with and retain the shorter lens to film distance like they had done with the 1. Sell a separate adapter to allow AF (and even MF) lenses to be used and they'd have a winner on their hands. Yes, I know, they went with the smaller sensor to allow for a smaller camera system. Maybe a Nikon 2 series with DX sensor? Even better, make the Nikon 2 series lenses with an image circle large enough to allow a larger FX sensor and a Nikon 3 series camera with full frame sensor.




well i really love my Nikon 1 J1. i used to be an olympus PEN user but i'm never going back to micro-4/3

yes the 1-inch sensor is small but it was never intended to compete w/ aps-c or even micro-4/3. it's "good enough" for me and i have no intentions of buying a real DSLR. last year i took the J1 around nine US states. i really appreciated the small size. even the lenses are so small! the f/1.8 50mm-equiv prime lens is tiny and so lightweight, great for carrying around both detached or attached to the camera. and it's $186 at adorama, just a great price


----------



## will (Aug 27, 2014)

This may be dated somewhat - but - it should be looked into. Some of the older DSLRs, when in movie mode, did not have all the same capabilities as a 'real' movie camera. IF memory serves me, auto focus or zoom was fixed at the initial setting. 

Like I said, this may be old information and no longer correct. I use a Nikon DSLR, but I have never shot movies.


----------



## Steve K (Aug 28, 2014)

One thing I liked about the 5200 was that it could do HD video. It's worked out well enough. Here's a short video of some planes taxiing...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kurtsj00/14760733330/
Flickr does compress the video a bit.. it looks better on my computer.

I am a bit slow in other areas of technology. Just got an iPod which does HD video too. This might be more practical for quick videos of kids, since it's easier to keep laying around and there's not much to mess with. The main advantage of the DSLR would be the ability to use different focal length lenses and zoom in. 

If you do a lot of videos, a proper video camera would be better than the 5200. The 5200 requires that you use the monitor on the back of the camera to shoot video (since the mirror is locked in the up position). This produces a less steady shot, I think. It certainly becomes apparent when using a long lens. The 5200 doesn't seem to maintain focus as well when doing videos either.


----------



## BloodLust (Aug 28, 2014)

Nikon user here since 2007.

Nikon D80
Using a Tamron 28-75/2.8.

Need to have my shutter replaced.

I was hoping for a D300s successor but they came out with the D7000 instead. My mom has the D7100 which I'm teaching her how to use. Still seeing if I like the feel of it since I love the D80 controls.


----------



## martinaee (Sep 7, 2014)

Oh heck yeah. Never saw this thread.

D800 as my main. D90 which I have loved for so long as it's like a light D300/s. And my trusty D50 which I still have but haven't really even used in forever. I actually got it used but learned so much on it when I first started. The D50 is actually still a sweet DSLR as it has an electronic shutter unlike basically any newer cameras and can achieve at least 1/500th flash sync. Didn't really use it much, but cool for some super fast macro stuff without needing crazy broncolor strobes or something.

I wish I had the D810 as from what I hear it has a really good auto-focus system, but it's no biggie.


----------



## Overclocker (Sep 7, 2014)

just received my amazon basics remote. hope it lasts longer than the ones on the right, Photive and Fasttech cheapo


----------



## rayman (Sep 27, 2014)

Got myself a D80 about 5 years ago and really got to love it. I'm not professional in any sense but you really see the difference to normal point-and-click cameras. I bought it to get more into the subjects but that never actually happend yet .

rayman


----------



## BanditoPete (Sep 29, 2014)

I just retired my venerable D40. Sad it just expired after providing some good years together. Funny how a camera can become part of you and your vision. "Sophie" and I had been to Europe, India, and Hong Kong together. She never had let me down and her 6MP photos are still some of my favorites.


----------



## Steve K (Sep 29, 2014)

hmmm.... I put my D40x aside when I picked up a D5200. Haven't decided what to do with it. I think the sensor is dirty because some weird spots were showing up in some photos. Is there a market for a camera this old, or should it get donated to Goodwill?


----------



## BanditoPete (Sep 29, 2014)

Steve K said:


> hmmm.... I put my D40x aside when I picked up a D5200. Haven't decided what to do with it. I think the sensor is dirty because some weird spots were showing up in some photos. Is there a market for a camera this old, or should it get donated to Goodwill?



The sensor on mine went kaput. I doubt if there's any value on mine, but if you have a somewhat dirty sensor it probably can be cleaned and prolong it's life. In another month or two I might look into a refurbished D5200. For now, the camera on my Samsung Note 3 will have to do.


----------



## will (Sep 30, 2014)

I just picked up a refurbished D5200. I wanted something with a few more features than the D90 I use. I'll still keep the D90 - I have a few lenses that will only work with the autofocus 'screw' on the D90

As a second part of this - Has anyone gone into the picture setting to change the focus, or the saturation. I started to fool around a little with RAW, trying to get a more vivid picture. It looks like you can alter the camera settings, or get a post production software tool ( like Adobe Lightroom ) to fix. the image.


----------



## martinaee (Oct 13, 2014)

will said:


> I just picked up a refurbished D5200. I wanted something with a few more features than the D90 I use. I'll still keep the D90 - I have a few lenses that will only work with the autofocus 'screw' on the D90
> 
> As a second part of this - Has anyone gone into the picture setting to change the focus, or the saturation. I started to fool around a little with RAW, trying to get a more vivid picture. It looks like you can alter the camera settings, or get a post production software tool ( like Adobe Lightroom ) to fix. the image.



This is something that nobody ever explains to people learning digital photography, but picture controls like "vivid, saturation, contrast, sharpness" are for in camera .jpg processing. To my knowledge they don't alter raw files (Nikon .NEF) in any way. That would assumedly require an extra .xmp file being created alongside the raw files *in the camera* . Configure them for when you just want to shoot only .jpg files that you don't want to have to edit much later.

Yeah the D90 is a great camera. It's still my backup to my D800. It's kind of a shame they stopped putting physical focusing drives in the lower end Nikons. Not a must, but definitely nice especially for people starting to get lenses. I think it's been replaced but the 50mm 1.8D is a fantastic lens and like 130 bucks now. Yeah the 1.8g is the newer version and it's about 220 bucks. Lenses like that won't auto-focus on cams like the D5200 now.


----------



## martinaee (Oct 13, 2014)

KNaB said:


> I just bought my first, a Nikon d5200. I'm still tinkering and learning when I get the time. Also picked up the Nikkor 105 mm micro lens and a 12-24 1.4



I assume you mean a 12-24 f/4. The 12-24 1:4 means a max iris diaphragm opening of f/4. There is no 12-24 f/1.4 (yet) unfortunately. The 14-24 f/2.8 is about the best wide angle lens you can buy though. I wish I owned it. Crazy good lens.


----------



## will (Oct 13, 2014)

Interesting you mention the 50mm 1.8 - that is one of the two lenses I still carry for the D90, the other is a 60mm macro that is crazy good for close ups. I got the macro off ebay, it was damaged and it took a risk for the $50 I paid. Turns out the damage was to the front filter ring, slightly bent in. I took a pair of pliers and a small wooden block and straightened it out, put on a UV filter and life is good. 

I was not sure about the camera setting for vivid - what they actually changed. I had taken a picture of a sign, both jpg and raw, the raw was clearly not focused as well as the jpg. Now that I know a bit more about the vivid settings - I'll fool around with those for a bit. I still might get lightroom and do some post editing. 

Time to do some reading and spend time taking pictures with different settings. I don't use the various scene settings on the dial. I'll have to look into those as well. I am an old school photographer. I like to do my own settings.

Looking at most of the original pictures I took, most have been tweeked a little to enhance color. If I can do that in the camera, that might be the best.

I use the cameras for taking pictures only, no movies, no on camera editing.

I have downloaded the different user manuals for the cameras from the Nikon site. I have all the PDF files on my laptop and I have them available to me at any time. I also have hardcopy


----------



## martinaee (Oct 13, 2014)

Hey Will, yeah I'd not worry about the various "scene" modes. Even given the chance when I want to just let the camera do most of the work just put it in A, S, or P. With digital these days your "negative" basically is the raw file. I encourage everybody to process those more using photoshop and/or lightroom (I use both) (or aperture---but I haven't ever used that program at all... only for os x I think).

The 5200 should have basic in camera processing. You could shoot in raw and then use the process functions to tweek the image a bit then output a processed .jpg file that you can then download alongside the raw file if you wish. I use that sometimes if I know the photos aren't for a job or for my own art, but you still want to have control over how the look a bit. Shooting in only raw all the time is just too much for most people and I get that, but I basically do it no matter what now because you never know when you'll get an image you wish you didn't shoot in .jpg. There just is so much less info to recover and work with if you want to really process the image exactly how you want later.

I think full size .jpgs out of my D800 are about 15mb. Raw files that I shoot on it on the lossless compressed 12bit mode are about 30-40mb. That's what I use most of the time just so it doesn't make my computer cpu and file storage burst into flames. If you shoot in 14bit uncompressed raw on the D800 the raw files are over 70mb. 

Off topic, but It's so weird to me that they got rid of the top lcd on "lower" end Nikons and Canon cameras. I guess I'd just get used to it and use the info button way more, but I could never not have it. I guess it makes the cameras physically a little bit smaller, but overall I suspect it's just something they realized over time they could do away with and just relegate to "info" buttons to save on cost.


----------



## martinaee (Oct 13, 2014)

For anyone interested in beginning learning or even just learning more about photography check out Mark Wallace on youtube. I think he did a lot on the adorama channel, but "Snapfactory" has his digital photo 1 on 1 series which is super awesome. It has a playlist of over 100 videos here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/snapfactory/playlists

This reminds me I want to go watch more of those. Great stuff. There are lots of more beginning videos covering everything about DSLRs all the way up to way more advanced stuff.


----------



## will (Oct 13, 2014)

martinaee said:


> Off topic, but It's so weird to me that they got rid of the top lcd on "lower" end Nikons and Canon cameras. I guess I'd just get used to it and use the info button way more, but I could never not have it. I guess it makes the cameras physically a little bit smaller, but overall I suspect it's just something they realized over time they could do away with and just relegate to "info" buttons to save on cost.



I thought I would miss the lcd, but, I prefer the full screen image. In reality, I did not use it that much. 

My understanding of Lightroom is that you can pre-set values that will be used when you import raw files to the PC. I take a lot of pictures and I would guess that 1 out of 30 I would want to really tweek up. the rest I could delete the raw file and just keep the jpg. 

Thanks for the info - greatly appreciated.

Somewhat unrelated to todays modern cameras. It reminds me a little of working with the 'zone system' for Black and White. This was a method used to improve the resulting picture by adjusting the exposure and developing times to get pure blacks and whites. I think that Ansel Adams used this.


----------



## will (Oct 14, 2014)

I did a lot of reading on the Nikon Picture Control trying to find out what the camera is actually doing. The picture control settings are user set while in A, S, P, or M modes. I have not been able to find what picture control setting are changed while in the various scene mode settings ( on the dial ) for example landscape states it will increase the contrast and increase the color saturation. My assumption is that it will change the various picture control settings. This only affects the jpg image. 

I had hoped to find a chart that showed what the settings would be in each of the scene modes. 

I also found out the camera would do in camera HDR - this takes 2 pictures and then combines them. 

It almost seems like the camera will do what I want by just using the different modes available

So - after all this - time to get out the tripod and do a bunch of test pictures.....


----------



## martinaee (Oct 15, 2014)

will said:


> I did a lot of reading on the Nikon Picture Control trying to find out what the camera is actually doing. The picture control settings are user set while in A, S, P, or M modes. I have not been able to find what picture control setting are changed while in the various scene mode settings ( on the dial ) for example landscape states it will increase the contrast and increase the color saturation. My assumption is that it will change the various picture control settings. This only affects the jpg image.
> 
> I had hoped to find a chart that showed what the settings would be in each of the scene modes.
> I also found out the camera would do in camera HDR - this takes 2 pictures and then combines them.
> ...



Yup. That's why I recommend just staying in either A, S, P, or M. The scene modes on the dial of a cam like the D5200 are more "full auto" it's often really obscure how the settings are actually chosen. With ASPM you can relenquish some control, but still get exactly what you want. The picture control settings in the menu let you tweak how the jpgs will be processed and saved in camera. You can actually custom adjust those settings if you want. If you are going to shoot a lot of just jpg I definitely recommend testing this out so you can see what you get. For sure, I still have to do this every once in a while with a setting--- sometimes you literally can only really get a feel for what something does by testing it out. Good thing digital is free once you have the gear (I say that a bit sarcastically since photo gear is a bottomless pit that eats money) 

I had to refresh myself on the zone system a bit (this video and this guy's art of photography series is amazing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_k2iAgZfGs) I did a bit of B+W film photo in art school a few years ago, but only shoot digital now.
For how I shoot I basically always shoot for the deepest shadow detail. Raw files have amazing depth for processing and recovering info which is why they are like unprocessed film negatives. Jpgs are more like final prints so you can't really go back and tweak nearly as much. A camera like the D800 has amazing shadow detail and you can cleanly recover several stops of shadow info from a raw file. It's good but not as good with recovering highlights so I almost never let an image overexpose to complete white if possible. After the fact you can easily adjust the image in the basic "pre-post-processing" to get the shadows and highlights where you want them. I guess this is what the zone system has become if you want to equate it to film photography. That's obviously not possible always depending on subject like when shooting people, but if you are shooting your own art work you can take your time much more.

How I look at it is always shoot to retain as much tonal range as possible with digital raw. You can process later in the "zone system", but if you under/over expose you can't process exactly how you want later. For this reason I end up shooting a little under what a "correct exposure" is according to the in camera meter with no EV compensation engaged.

I have utter respect for people who are truly into still shooting film and are very particular about developing film and prints. It's very involved and it definitely is an "art" in itself even before the actual subject matter of the images in the film/prints. I love digital though these days because the quality potential is there and immediate if you know what you are doing and certain steps are taken out of the equation. Also no dangerous chemicals at all if you never do any printing yourself with digital lol.


----------



## will (Oct 15, 2014)

I still have the old B&W enlarger, the brown bottles, the tongs, the trays. I did just dump all the chemicals - years past the expiration date. I found some old Autographic negatives. they are like 2 1/2 inch by 4 inches ( size is approx. ) I wanted to print them - so - they are too big for the enlarger. I did a contact print with other negatives a few years back. This time I used a scanner and did a reverse image on the PC - worked like a charm. 

One of these days I'll finish off the film I have in my freezer. I also found a lab that still does process 120 film. I have a twin lens camera that I have used on occasion. All manual, have to use a separate light meter.


----------



## martinaee (Oct 15, 2014)

Yeah even thought I only got to do film myself a tiny bit (I wasn't even a photo student) I still think it's kind of sad that it's going away. There still were students doing film work, but I have a feeling that's going to be less and less at a lot of places. It's just a really cool process by itself. I was successful at putting the film in the canisters in the dark though when I did it 

Digital is nice though because it does allow learning to be very quick if you apply yourself. If you really get yourself out there you can learn through shooting and seeing results and what is happening. I know a pro grade DSLR looks daunting, but I'm trying to convince my GF that it's fun and I can teach her if she'll let me.

Oh yeah those twin lens cameras are sweet. I kind of want one just to have because some of them look so bad-***. One with a ground glass viewfinder.


----------



## will (Oct 15, 2014)

martinaee said:


> Oh yeah those twin lens cameras are sweet. I kind of want one just to have because some of them look so bad-***. One with a ground glass viewfinder.



I picked up a couple off ebay - the viewfinders were kind of dim - found out the mirrors were shot. They are front surface mirrors ( no glass on top of the reflective surface ) I found that the small square makeup mirrors will work. They are very thin and can be cut easily to size. I replaced the mirrors and used them a few times.

Back to the DSLRs - I agree that the learning can be quick - instant results, The post processing is easy on the PC. Fortunately - there is no paper waste, no chemicals to deal with. 

When I bought the D5200, I spoke with the sales person for awhile. I asked if there was any buyout for the N90s I have - The used market right now is for the old manual cameras, mostly for the schools that teach the basics -


----------



## PCC (Oct 21, 2014)

Film cameras these days are dirt cheap. Some cameras fare better than others. For example, my old FE2 sells these days around $100 which is a little bit more than 1/4 what I paid for it brand new back in 1983. The F4s sells around $200 which is 1/9 what it cost brand new. The N8008s that I just picked up sells for around $50 which is roughly 1/9 what they were brand new. The N8008s and F4s are advanced AF film cameras with Matrix metering and automatic film advance while the FE2 is a manual film camera with the only automation being the Aperture Preferred auto exposure mode. The only other mode is full manual.

With regards to the Nikon 1 series, I guess Nikon is trying to set itself apart from the rest of the crowd when it comes to interchangeable lens non-DSLR cameras and I can respect that. They need to make products that sell and make them money to allow them to move forward and it pays for the research into tomorrow's cameras. It's certainly not something that I would buy for myself nor my family, but, I certainly wouldn't try to talk someone out of one if they're looking at buying one. I am looking at the Sony a6000 as a possible next camera for my family to use. With an adapter I can use my old Nikon lenses and even my cousin's Canon lenses. It's an extremely versatile camera system.

Since my last update I've picked up a my cousin's N8008s with an AF-Nikkor 35-135mm zoom lens. I just purchased a MB-20 for the F4s to make it an F4. Also, I recently purchased an AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D. The 1973 AI'd 35mm f/2.0 that my nephew returned to me with my old FE2 has been pressed to use on my D610 and I'm finding that it's a great lens. It's sharp except for the far corners and it's contrasty as well. It's become my favorite lens.


----------



## PCC (Oct 31, 2014)

I purchased a pre-AI 50mm f/1.4 from fleabay last week and it arrived yesterday. This morning I took it apart and repaired it. While I had it apart I also took the opportunity to convert it to AI by milling the aperture ring to clear the metering prong of my cameras. The only things wrong with that lens was that a retaining ring had popped out of its groove and that allowed the aperture setting ring inside the camera body to come loose which meant that the external aperture ring was not working. Since it was wedged inside the body it prevented the lens from focusing to infinity. Someone had tried taking the lens apart from the flange side and they ended up bending the fork that actuates the aperture mechanism when a picture is taken so that the aperture would not return to wide open because it was dragging inside the lens body. I got that straightened out as well. Now the lens works like new and it even looks almost like new.


----------



## xdayv (Nov 2, 2014)

Been stucked with the D800E for a little while now.


----------



## PCC (Dec 13, 2014)

I've been on a bit of a buying binge lately. I bought two 50mm f/1.4 AI lenses, one was dismantled but complete and the other missing a trim ring and has a dented filter ring. Moved the trim and filter rings from the first one to the second one and now that one is looking much better. Works fine either way. The one with the dented ring and missing trim will be my user lens.

More recently, I bought a grab bag of assorted Nikon lenses and parts. Got a 105mm f/2.5 K-type lens (first of the rubber focus rings but before AI was introduced). It had its share of issues but the glass is good enough to take great photos with so it's a keeper. There's a K-type 35mm f/2 in there that's missing some parts that I want to assemble into a video lens. The rest are not worth the effort but are enough to keep me entertained when I'm bored at home on a rainy day.

I stopped by a local camera store that also deals with used equipment and consignments and found a complete set of extension tubes still in their original boxes that look to be barely used for $100. The set includes: PK-11a; PK-12; PK-13; and PN-11. That's a bargain! Now need to go back down there to buy it.


----------



## will (Dec 21, 2014)

We took a trip last week. I finally got into the habit of changing the settings from P,M,A,S and got into the different modes. It does in fact make a difference in the resulting images. Landscapes have greater color, beach images look brighter. 

SO - it looks like the different modes do more than adjust the speed and lens opening. 

I still have not found any documentation as to what is actually being changed..


----------



## PCC (Dec 26, 2014)

P, M, A, S explained:
P = Programmed. The camera decides on everything. You can spin one or the other wheel (I haven't used this feature so I'm not sure which one) and the camera adjusts accordingly so there's a manual override there. The ISO can be manually set or you can use Auto-ISO.
M = Manual. You decide on everything including whether to be off on the exposure or not. You can set it to Auto-ISO and that will bring the exposure into what the camera thinks is right.
A = Aperture preferred. You select the aperture and the camera selects the shutter speed. ISO can be manually set or you can set it to Auto-ISO and the camera will adjust the ISO as needed as the shutter speed drops into potential blurry picture shutter speeds. Mostly, A mode is used for landscapes since the Aperture controls depth of field and you want DOF when shooting landscapes.
S = Shutter preferred. You select the shutter speed and the camera selects the aperture. ISO can be set manually or you can set it to Auto-ISO and the camera will adjust the ISO when you run out of f-stops on either end. Shutter preferred is preferred for sports and fast action photography since you are controlling the shutter speed and this can stop fast action or give the impression of speed due to intentional motion blur.

By now you should understand that there are three things that affect exposure and they're all interrelated: Shutter speed; Aperture opening; and sensor/film sensitivity, known as ISO. For any given scene you are balancing the amount of light hitting the sensor/film with the aperture, varying the exposure time with the shutter speed, and changing how sensitive the sensor is by changing the ISO. For film you are either shooting the entire roll at the rated ISO or intentionally pushing it for more speed along with the accompanying push in development. If you make one change, one of the other two or both need to be changed to compensate. A scene that is exposed correctly at 1/500 second at f/8 and ISO200 would expose correctly at 1/1000 second and f/5.6 at ISO200. Likewise, 1/500 second and f/5.6 at ISO100 would give the same results.

To throw a wrench into all this, Nikon changes other things when you use the scene modes. That's why, when you use landscape mode, the colors are more vivid. Overcast mode changes the scene to deemphasize blue, etc. You can go into the menus to manually set the camera to make all photos vivid if you want. All this is only relevant if you shoot JPGs. RAW does not have any filters as it's the raw data and this raw data is used to generate a JPG and they can further manipulate the image in the process of creating the JPG image.


----------



## will (Dec 26, 2014)

Thanks for a more detailed explanation. I am an old school photographer. I had assumed ( wrongly ) that the different modes offered by Nikon only affected the speed, aperture and ISO ( if on auto ). The computer and sensor in the camera can do a lot of other things which affect the image, kinda like photoshop in the camera. This can be contrast, color balance, hues and even the focus. 

So - the mode settings can really yield better images for the type of scene you are photographing.


----------



## will (Dec 26, 2014)

This comes under the 'DUH' factor..

I have a backpack that I keep my Nikon setup in. This is 4 lenses, 2 camera bodies, 2 flashes, batteries, chargers and other odds and ends. When I travel, I pick what I need for the trip and scale down on the camera equipment, Usually 1 DSLR, 1 underwater camera and maybe 2 lenses. I picked up a smaller camera bag and was in the process of setting up the velcro dividers. I would fold the divider in half, then make an attempt to get straight where I wanted it. This would take a few tries and lots of peeling the velcro apart. 

DUH - I put a small piece of cardboard on each side, move the divider where I want it, then simply pull the cardboard out.


----------



## PCC (Dec 26, 2014)

will said:


> Thanks for a more detailed explanation. I am an old school photographer. I had assumed ( wrongly ) that the different modes offered by Nikon only affected the speed, aperture and ISO ( if on auto ). The computer and sensor in the camera can do a lot of other things which affect the image, kinda like photoshop in the camera. This can be contrast, color balance, hues and even the focus.
> 
> So - the mode settings can really yield better images for the type of scene you are photographing.


Yeah, I had an epiphany about six months ago when I realized that, unlike film where you get what you get so you had better get it right to begin with, you have some leeway with digital. The trick is to shoot in RAW for the things you think you're going to want to mess with. For family photos I typically shoot in JPG since I'm not usually going to retouch those. If I'm out taking photos of places and things, especially with tricky lighting, I try to remember to shoot in RAW. One trick that my D610 allows me is to expose for the highlights and pull the shadow details out later. You can pull about two stops of shadows out and get amazing results.


----------



## PCC (Dec 26, 2014)

Here's an example of the last thing I mentioned:
Original photo






Same photo with the shadows brought out


----------



## qmtu (Aug 9, 2015)

Just joined the forum this weekend.

I used a Nikon N6006 and N8008 in the film days.
My first digital camera was a Nikon Coolpix 900, followed by Nikon Coolpix 990.
After that, Nikon D1x, Nikon D70, Nikon D200, Nikon D90, Nikon D700, Nikon D600, and Nikon D4.

Now I just have Nikon P7000 (unused), Nikon D700 (unused), Nikon D600 (less used), and Nikon D4 (most used).

My most carried camera is a Sony RX1.

Hmm, sounds like I need to sell off some.


----------



## angerdan (Aug 12, 2015)

qmtu said:


> sounds like I need to sell off some.


And focus more what you capture.
Also the lenses are important.


----------



## bykfixer (Aug 13, 2015)

My first Nikon was digital. I was raised by Pentax shooters and used those in the film days along with a belle & howell p&s. 

Actually my first digital was a 1.0mp pair of binoculars.

But after a couple of Hewlett Packard P&S I took the plunge for a D80 w/18-135 and a 70-300vc.

Next was a D700, a nice Nikon flash and a battery pack.
Then a D7000 replaced the D80 for it's lack of noise in low light at decently quick iso levels. Also bought a 400 and 600 flash. 

The D700 has an old non cpu 35-70 and the reliable 70-300vc, a macro 60mm 2.8 and a 1.8 50mm for weddings etc. The 7000 has supplied 18-55, a 55-200 and a 55-300. All Nikon lenses. 

Lot's of memory cards, several bags, tripod/monopod options and many flashlights for different effects. 

I shoot 100% RAW and use Faststone image viewer. No photoshop here. If I dial it right, I rarely need it...so on those rare occasions I get my wife (a Canon shooter) to fix it.
Being a Canon shooter, she's very familiar with photoshop.


----------



## martinaee (Aug 22, 2015)

PCC said:


> Yeah, I had an epiphany about six months ago when I realized that, unlike film where you get what you get so you had better get it right to begin with, you have some leeway with digital. The trick is to shoot in RAW for the things you think you're going to want to mess with. For family photos I typically shoot in JPG since I'm not usually going to retouch those. If I'm out taking photos of places and things, especially with tricky lighting, I try to remember to shoot in RAW. One trick that my D610 allows me is to expose for the highlights and pull the shadow details out later. You can pull about two stops of shadows out and get amazing results.



That's not just a benefit, but more is HOW I shoot with my Nikons (or at least with my D800 as it's good enough in Aperture Priority that I can trust the exposure to be what I'd want if I could shoot each shot in manual).

I primarily shot in manual for years with my D50 and then D90 and while I still do on my D800 I find it so nice to shoot almost exclusively in Aperture Priority with a negative 1/3rd stop compensation. This makes it usually JUST under blown out for any highlights in the scene if I'm in full coverage metering mode. The D800 has such ridiculous ability to bring back dark images that you really don't have to worry. So even if you are shooting a very contrast-y day with bright sunlight on the ground you can shoot for that and then recover any shadows you want with ease. Of course if you are going for a particular exposure effect you put it in manual and expose for what you want, but you see my point. Often for my personal work I just want an all around properly exposed image with no blown highlights and this lets me get that pretty easily and frees me up to primarily focus on composition/subject/etc. I should say I'm talking mainly about nature photography and street photography here. Obviously for portraiture or studio work you just put it in manual mode. I like raw files to be like how most videographers would want their footage--- not blown out or clipped on either end so you have leeway to make your shot exactly what you want it to be in post. 

It's ridiculous how "spoiled" you can become with an amazing piece of tech like a D800 or practically anything else today. I took out my "ancient" D50 today which I primarily learned photography on when I was in college. In a weird way I'm thankful I learned on it because I saw again today how slow and clunky it is and how absolutely horrible the metering and chimping are on it. It really made it probably closer to a film camera for me than if I had learned on one of the nicer cameras from today just 10 years later. It really makes you slow down. Not that I think people can't learn on a really nice camera these days, but you might not see the intricacies of exposure choices if you let the camera do everything for you in one of the semi auto modes available.


----------



## lonelyboy (Aug 23, 2015)

I have F4, F6 and FM2, still using film for photography now.


----------



## martinaee (Aug 23, 2015)

lonelyboy said:


> I have F4, F6 and FM2, still using film for photography now.



I did a tiny bit of film photography, but I wish I had gotten the chance to shoot on a pro film Nikon body. I guess I still could if I wanted to look into borrowing or renting one from somewhere. I wouldn't do it much, but it seems fun to play around with.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Aug 23, 2015)

I've got an F2H that does 12 frames per second as well as the 250 frame exposure back. Goes through film rather fast. Can't use high frame rates in cold weather though as it will rip the leader off the film.

I have the same set up for the F3 titanium with high speed winder. Processing your own film is the way to go though. Loved the ergonomics of the F4.

I used to photograph at most of the east coast Nascar tracks as well as Orioles baseball games. All of my newspaper photographer buddies resisted the change over to digital until forced. Then they were forced into Canon, well atleast until the Canon deals stopped.

Canon was paying most of the photo agencies to use the EOS system and their big white lenses. I can at least still use all of my long and fast lenses on the new pro level bodies fully metered. Had friends that lost their butts when Canon dropped support for their flagship F1 with the EOS.


----------



## bykfixer (Oct 17, 2015)

I like the direction this page has gone. 

Film required educated guessing and use of potential carcenogens, but imo made for better photos when an expert in the dark room worked their magic. But digital in the hands of an expert who knows his/her camera strengths and weaknesses are rivaling those film works of art these days. 
I have friends who still swear by their D 2 and D50 cameras. Of course they have newer for fast moving/low light times. 

I relied on "Fox Photo" to get mine done and only dabbled in the dark room with an oatmeal canister pinhole camera in high school. 

But I honestly think knowing the basics of aperature, shutter speed and what not helps the digital photographer as well.

I know that knowing the basics helps me get succesful 'decent' shots for work with a p&s camera. I can tweak some of the sensors reaction by knowing things like portrait setting gives me a larger aperature automatically while sports mode is good for stop motion... Stuff like that comes in handy as I take photos of activities on a construction site with my handy dandy shirt pocket sized camera.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Oct 17, 2015)

*bykfixer*,

No guess work required, it's called experience. You purchased film in bulk and tested to get the best possible results with both sharpness and color saturation. I purchased from B&H in bulk once I tested a brick and found it suitable for my use.

I've got a Wing Lynch 5 processor exclusively for film and a Jobo CPP-2 for film and prints. As for hazardous materials, E-6, C-41, Cibachrome and RA-4 are all very safe chemistries. I can't speak for the Kodachrome process as Kodak issued so few licenses for the process that once Fuji brought out Velvia, the writing was on the wall. Two different types of development, but unless you need 200 plus year archival, not an issue.

Speaking of archival, what are you using to store your digital images? Check out the M-Disk.

I would could run 12 sheets of 4X5 film at a time and my cost was less than $2.00 a sheet verses $7.00 each at one of the dedicated Fuji houses.

Having learned the Zone system for exposure and using handheld meters, you quickly could spot areas where there were more that 2 stops difference. Other than composition, it would be rare to have an image that was over or under exposed by more than a half a stop that wasn't usable.

I remember my first Nikon/Kodak 460/465 pro camera. Anything higher than 3200 ISO was so noisy you might as well forget about the shot unless you were shooting monochrome. 

Digital has come a long way, however shooting Velvia ISO 50 with it's grain structure (imo better that Kodachrome 25 was) or Kodak with their tungsten based films still can't be beat.


----------



## will (Oct 18, 2015)

I learned a few things over the years with the digital cameras. They will set your speed and lens opening. BUT. they do a lot more than that. They also set the contrast, the sharpness. and lots more. 

Take a landscape picture - first just using an shutter speed setting. Then do the same picture using the landscape setting on the camera. You will find that the color density will be different, maybe even the sharpness. 

I used to stick with the 'Auto or Program ' mode, then go back into picasa and adjust the color and whatnot. Now I use the correct scene setting for what I am taking a picture of. Rarely do I need to go back in and make adjustments. 

I made an attempt to find out what additional setting the camera did on the various scene settings, I could not find that information, only that some things were changed. 

My DSLR has a lot of things you can customize - sort of like what the scene settings do. 

Take a few minutes and fool around with the various setting and you will see what I am talking about.


----------



## SemiMan (Oct 19, 2015)

Bought my first "real" digital, a D80, when it first came out. The F3 went on the shelf beside the X-370 (was amazing at night metering), but I assumed I would still shoot a lot of film. Nope, not one more shot on film. I was recently pulling out the F3, thinking I should put it on E-bay. It still has a roll of film in it. No clue what it on there 

The D80 was upgraded to a D700, but I found the weight not to my non-professional liking, and with the quality of the DX I went back with the D7100 recently and have been happy. One of the impediments to an SLR is carrying it.

I can't say I miss film at all. Dynamic range with new sensors is pretty good. Not film good, but pretty good, and ISO performance is excellent as is metering. From a technology standpoint, I would say we appear to be almost topping out with current cameras with perhaps another few generations of improvements though software gets better all the time. It really is impressive.

Lenses perhaps have room for improvement (especially cost!). Getting something able to get the most out of a DX camera is not easy. 

I still hit Ken Rockwell's site every month or so, mainly as a reminder that it is not the camera, but the person holding it that makes for good pictures. There is a great market out there of used equipment bought by people "upgrading" from DX to full-frame / etc. who think it is magically going to improve their shots.


----------



## bykfixer (Oct 19, 2015)

SemiMan said:


> Bought my first "real" digital, a D80, when it first came out. The F3 went on the shelf beside the X-370 (was amazing at night metering), but I assumed I would still shoot a lot of film. Nope, not one more shot on film. I was recently pulling out the F3, thinking I should put it on E-bay. It still has a roll of film in it. No clue what it on there
> 
> The D80 was upgraded to a D700, but I found the weight not to my non-professional liking, and with the quality of the DX I went back with the D7100 recently and have been happy. One of the impediments to an SLR is carrying it.
> 
> ...




The D80 was my first dslr too. My wedding photographer showed me his like a year before I finally decided that spending $1000 for a camera kit was ok. 

Loved my 700, but the weight got old quick. So I went with the 7000. 
I still prefer the FX for scenes and what-not. But for quick action type stuff where I don't have a lot of time to predict, the 7000 generally thinks like I do. 

The Ken Rockwell site has steered me away from more stuff than towards. He speaks my language. 
And each time I bought a new rig I'd have to go there and check out _his_ settings of it and tailor to my tastes from there.


----------



## bykfixer (Oct 19, 2015)

NoNotAgain said:


> *bykfixer*,
> 
> No guess work required, it's called experience. You purchased film in bulk and tested to get the best possible results with both sharpness and color saturation. I purchased from B&H in bulk once I tested a brick and found it suitable for my use.
> 
> ...



^^ I hear ya sir.

I didn't purchase film in bulk, buy tons of expensive gear and become the worlds best photographer while in high school on a paper route budget or at a young adult age raising youngans and attending night school...so it was educated guessing for me n mine. I shot a few here and a few there with (mostly) Fuji 100 film. 
(I still use the white containers as flash diffusers)

Now my pop was an expert sure enough. Yet at 19 I was trying to learn tricks of the trade on my own while marveling at his masterpieces...especially his black & whites.

And as tight with his money as my pop was, he used Fox photo instead of his own dark room. So I used Fox Photo.

Velvia is great stuff. But the only film rigs I have left are and old Pentax and a Rebel G(?) If memory serves both begin their auto recognize at 100 iso.

And as far as archiving I'm using gold core DVD's by Delkin devices or Sony and a couple of mirror hard drives. And Hoodman RAW steel memory cards.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Oct 19, 2015)

SemiMan said:


> Lenses perhaps have room for improvement (especially cost!). Getting something able to get the most out of a DX camera is not easy.
> 
> I still hit Ken Rockwell's site every month or so, mainly as a reminder that it is not the camera, but the person holding it that makes for good pictures. There is a great market out there of used equipment bought by people "upgrading" from DX to full-frame / etc. who think it is magically going to improve their shots.



One thing that the FX over the DX will do is give you a sharper image.

I only have a few DX lenses. The basic 28-55 is actually pretty good for what it is. 

No matter how sharp a lens is, the image sensor wins out every time.

When I shot wild life and action sports, long fast Nikon glass was hard to beat. Then I dropped some serious money on two Mamiya 654 Pro fast lenses. The 300 2.8 and the 500 4.0. With the Nikon, a player sliding into third base looked good. The same third base slide using the Mamiya 645 wasn't even close, you could count the dirt particles in the air.

I haven't had a chance to test my D810 against the D7100, but at 36 mp, I've no doubt that it will beat out any of the DX based cameras.


----------



## bykfixer (Oct 19, 2015)

I thought DX crops better between my 700 and 7000. 
Just seems like the crop from the DX sensor is cleaner vs the FX. Maybe yalls experience differs?

Can't argue with good glass. 
I considered Zeiss lenses at one point. But got to spending my extra $ on cars instead of camera gear...now it's flash lights.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Oct 19, 2015)

The D700 is only a 12 mp FX camera. The D7000 is 16.3 mp DX format. 

I was looking at purchasing a D750 to mount on my Align M690 Octacopter since it's lighter in weight than the D810, and not as much money if the unit crashes and burns.

With today's DOT/FAA announcement on a drone registry, that's on hold until things shake out.

I've found that with each progressive model of digital camera, the sensor gets better, in sharpness, light sensitivity, and color rendition. 

Sort of like the advancements in LED lights.


----------



## ComputerTime (Aug 1, 2016)

Quite surprised to see discussion of cameras here. Seems that this thread has been dead for almost a year. 

Just wondering, has anyone thought of transplanting the digital sensor into a film back? So that the manual film camera can become digital camera?


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 2, 2016)

bykfixer said:


> Velvia is great stuff.



Bump blues and purples in your post-processing program, digital Velvia..



ComputerTime said:


> Just wondering, has anyone thought of transplanting the digital sensor into a film back? So that the manual film camera can become digital camera?



There are guys who do it, but it's a phenomenal engineering project/amount of work when a few hundred dollars buys you a current cutting-edge crop-sensor combo.


----------



## ComputerTime (Aug 2, 2016)

Frankly, that was the dream I thought about before I own a DSLR. I do not require 90% of the new DSLR, faster AF, better metering, different scenarios, etc. I still prefer the manual camera. Even I am using my DSLR now, I am still using Manual mode. I.e. I am underutilising my camera.


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 2, 2016)

I would argue that using "scene modes" is underutilizing a camera, and that knowing how to get the shot manually, especially in RAW format, represents the fullest use of a DSLR. I typically shoot in a Program-type mode with f-stop set to one wheel and ISO to the other, so the camera can decide some of the settings some of the time, but even shooting full manual I'd prefer the image and lens quality from a modern camera.


----------



## ComputerTime (Aug 4, 2016)

haha, no need to argue. Just different prospective. I take it as I did not make use of all the features provided by the camera. One of such is fast AF, as I am using my manual lens, or not an AFS lens. I do not use the camera AI, in deciding the Aperture and Shutter; I determine it. 

I am hoping that they (the camera maker) can just come out the basic DSLR, like FM2, this will help to cut down our cost. But that is their way of pushing out highend stuffs and force us to spend more.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Aug 4, 2016)

Computer Time. Nikon still sells the Fx camera. Looks just like the old FA/FE/FM series cameras. 

I've used Nikon for over 35 years. Each generation of camera attempts making photographers out of "point and shoot" people. A lot of professional photographers looked down on autofocus when it first hit the market. Now you'd be hard pressed to find one that isn't using autofocus unless it's on a view camera. 

Your first question on making your own digital back has been thought of before. It can be done on single shot cameras, but interfacing a shutter with the back for exposure is problematic. Look at the old Kodak/Nikon DCS 460 for an example of what I'm talking about.


----------



## ven (Aug 4, 2016)

Hey there NNA, as you know Rach likes her cameras and starting weddings again! Little set up for now to help get on track , and you know she is a Nikon chick ! Had Canons but i guess the brand you get brought up with or used to is the one you stick with for life......
d2x which is a decent old camera, not light mind! 24-120 VR lens,some heft with the flash gun on top
























How many lumens!







Modeled by Madison(real happy about it too :laughing: )


----------



## NoNotAgain (Aug 4, 2016)

Well Ven, I've got a couple of D2xs cameras as well as a couple of D3x cameras. The D2x is about a pound lighter than the D3 series as well as the D2's being a Dx format. Lenses are much lighter. 

Her camera appears in nice cosmetic shape. I do see she uses the zoom ring with the missing gold gilding. No tripod baseplate mount?

My Nikon rep will cut me a deal if I purchase two D5 bodies at once. Still close to $10k for the pair. 
Burke gave me four lenses to test out over the weekend and bring back the ones I didn't want. Not too many business people trust you with $15k of property and just bring back what you don't want. 

I can understand a woman wanting lighter weight but you give up using CF storage cards for Sd which don't have the same reliability. 
From what I'm hearing from my guy, the D750 is being well received as a backup unit. Same can be said for the D810 (too much money IMO). You still need an extended battery grip if you shoot portrait which I'm sure Rach does. 
Her D2x shutter is good for 300k clicks verses prosumer cameras good for 100k or so. It might not be the latest and greatest, but rarely can you tell the difference between 12, 16, or 20 mega pixel images with good equipment. 

Just about every piece of equipment I own has a redundancy. I used two F2 cameras, two F3 cameras, same for the F4's. When shooting fast paced subjects and you have an equipment failure, you need to pickup where you left off not where is this feature on this body? It's rare you got a second chance for that once in a life time shot.


----------



## ven (Aug 5, 2016)

Very true, back up camera's are important, good old D300 is sufficient or d300s for that duty, 18-200vr should have it covered. No plate, but we have tri-pods a plenty although she prefers not to use them.


----------



## ComputerTime (Aug 5, 2016)

I am not against new technology. 

I am using D600 now. Photography is just my hobby, not my income. Nikon only push out the FX Camera to the upper-end of the product line; middle to lower end DSLR does not support metering in manual mode. Thus, I am being pushed to use such a highend model, but did not fully utilise the features (The camera is charged at such a high price because of all the features).

Hence, I have an idea of doing a digital back for my film camera. Having said that, nothing has been done, as I am not engineering/technician trained, and I don't have the necessary equipment to do the job. Therefore, it will still be a dream.


----------



## ComputerTime (Aug 5, 2016)

I am not against new technology. 

I am using D600 now. Photography is just my hobby, not my income. Nikon only push out the FX Camera to the upper-end of the product line; middle to lower end DSLR does not support metering in manual mode. Thus, I am being pushed to use such a highend model, but did not fully utilise the features (The camera is charged at such a high price because of all the features).

Hence, I have an idea of doing a digital back for my film camera. Having said that, nothing has been done, as I am not engineering/technician trained, and I don't have the necessary equipment to do the job. Therefore, it will still be a dream.


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 5, 2016)

ComputerTime said:


> (The camera is charged at such a high price because of all the features).



For a feature-heavy mid-range camera, look to Pentax; their ~$600 bodies have the features of Nikon's ~$1,000 models.


----------



## martinaee (Aug 7, 2016)

ComputerTime said:


> I am not against new technology.
> 
> I am using D600 now. Photography is just my hobby, not my income. Nikon only push out the FX Camera to the upper-end of the product line; middle to lower end DSLR does not support metering in manual mode. Thus, I am being pushed to use such a highend model, but did not fully utilise the features (The camera is charged at such a high price because of all the features).
> 
> Hence, I have an idea of doing a digital back for my film camera. Having said that, nothing has been done, as I am not engineering/technician trained, and I don't have the necessary equipment to do the job. Therefore, it will still be a dream.



What do you mean you can't meter in manual mode? Is that true for Nikon's newest low end DSLRs? My D50, D90, and D800 all do it properly.


----------



## ThatPhotoGuy (Oct 12, 2016)

I am a pro photographer and I primarily use a D3x with a D3s in the bag as a backup/low light camera. My two most used lenses are the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 22.8VR. I've been using Nikon equipment for the last 15 years and started with an F2 and it was all downhill from there.
I will say I've been looking at the Fuji X-Pro line recently. I'm starting to get tired of lugging a 30 pound bag around everywhere. Getting too old and fat for that. =)


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 12, 2016)

ThatPhotoGuy said:


> I will say I've been looking at the Fuji X-Pro line recently.



After using the D3 series, maybe the Sony RX1RII or the Hasselblad X1D..


----------



## ThatPhotoGuy (Oct 13, 2016)

StarHalo said:


> After using the D3 series, maybe the Sony RX1RII or the Hasselblad X1D..



Not a bad idea on the Hassy, though I shoot a lot of kids and I would worry about it being quick enough. Sony
makes a good camera, but I've always had an irrational dislike of them as a company. Kinda like how PC people
hate apple for no real apparent reason.


----------



## ssanasisredna (Oct 25, 2016)

martinaee said:


> What do you mean you can't meter in manual mode? Is that true for Nikon's newest low end DSLRs? My D50, D90, and D800 all do it properly.



The new DX Nikons meter just fine in manual mode including the low end D3200 and D3300.


----------



## ssanasisredna (Oct 25, 2016)

ThatPhotoGuy said:


> I am a pro photographer and I primarily use a D3x with a D3s in the bag as a backup/low light camera. My two most used lenses are the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 22.8VR. I've been using Nikon equipment for the last 15 years and started with an F2 and it was all downhill from there.
> I will say I've been looking at the Fuji X-Pro line recently. I'm starting to get tired of lugging a 30 pound bag around everywhere. Getting too old and fat for that. =)



You will not get the low noise performance of the FX cameras, but the dynamic range of the better DX Nikon cameras is right up there and paired with reasonable quality glass, you will be hard pressed except under high magnification to notice the differences. Remember that not just the focal length changes, but where diffraction limiting comes into play and depth of focus versus f-stop so it can be a bit of a relearning experience.

The DX sized mirrorless Sony's are good cameras. They have some of the fastest autofocus systems available with far more points except on the most expensive DSLRs.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Oct 29, 2016)

ssanasisredna said:


> You will not get the low noise performance of the FX cameras, but the dynamic range of the better DX Nikon cameras is right up there and paired with reasonable quality glass, you will be hard pressed except under high magnification to notice the differences.
> 
> The DX sized mirrorless Sony's are good cameras. They have some of the fastest autofocus systems available with far more points except on the most expensive DSLRs.



The Fuji XT2 is quicker than the Sony and with adapters allows for Nikon lens use. Sony does have good sensors, just their cameras lack support. 

You must not have shot the new Nikon D500 then. This camera without ir focus assist down to -4 ev. You would be hard pressed to manually focus at -2ev. 

I've got shots taken at iso 102,000 that look very good. At iso 26,000, there better than most sub $2000 cameras. 

I also shoot D3x Nikons. I wanted a couple new FX cameras, looked at the D750 and D810, as well as the D5. I'll be purchasing a second D500.


----------



## ssanasisredna (Oct 30, 2016)

My comment was respect to noise which will impact low light / high ISO response. The D500 is really only better when pushed really hard, i.e. past 12800. Up to that point, it really does not have much advantage over my D7200 if any (and will argue below that even that is questionable).

My 610, which again has similar performance to almost all Nikon FX cameras at the raw sensor level, has markedly better real world low light performance ... at least at equivalent F-stop to my D7200. Keep in mind that at any given F-stop, the FX sensor is collecting a lot more light.

The D500 has the focus system from one of high end FX cameras, can't remember which one and does have the best low light focussing (-4ev as you noted in the center). My 7200 comes close (-3ev), but the 610 is a ways behind (-1), but with equivalent glass, I am getting better pictures most of the time.

One thing to keep in mind is that there is a lot of "marketing" going on in really high ISO shooting in DSLRs. When you shoot at say 25,600 all you are doing is setting the gain of some amplifiers to a higher gain to what they are at 12,800. There is absolutely no change in anything happening on the sensor w.r.t. light/image capture. Given how good the 14 bit A/Ds are in these cameras and the limitations of SHOT noise w.r.t. image capture, there comes a point where increasing the gain brings no value and may actually reduce quality. I.e. you may be better shooting at 12,800 and digitally pushing the image to 25,600 than using the native 25,600 in the camera. I find that is normally the case with my D7200 and D610. The claim to fame of the D500 is really the analog amplification and A/D so you can likely go higher before this is the case. I always shoot raw then use DxO noise reduction when I am doing low light. Not always, but often their Prime noise reduction is better than other tools and certainly better than in camera.


----------



## martinaee (Oct 30, 2016)

Yeah my D800 will be used for years still. The only actual things that matter to me that it could significantly improve upon are lower light autofocus and better lower ISO performance. The D810 isn't a big enough improvement. I feel like ACTUAL big upgrades with Nikon/Canon happen every 3rd refresh or so. I'm glad the D5/D500 seem to have amazing autofocus as that means whenever the D820 or whatever comes out it will surely adopt those systems.

Even then though it's not like I can't get all my shots exactly like I want 99 percent of the time with a D800. It's a tech marvel, but companies always want you to buy the next slightly better camera system. They also don't just greatly upgrade all the features as then they can't put "new" features into their next refresh every year.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Oct 31, 2016)

martinaee said:


> Yeah my D800 will be used for years still. The only actual things that matter to me that it could significantly improve upon are lower light autofocus and better lower ISO performance. The D810 isn't a big enough improvement. I feel like ACTUAL big upgrades with Nikon/Canon happen every 3rd refresh or so. I'm glad the D5/D500 seem to have amazing autofocus as that means whenever the D820 or whatever comes out it will surely adopt those systems.
> 
> Even then though it's not like I can't get all my shots exactly like I want 99 percent of the time with a D800. It's a tech marvel, but companies always want you to buy the next slightly better camera system. They also don't just greatly upgrade all the features as then they can't put "new" features into their next refresh every year.



Martin, the D800/810 are both very good cameras with huge 36mp sensors. Low light focusing could be better, but tech changes so fast, that you'll always be chasing the latest and greatest. As you stated, they like it that way.

I only upgrade or replace equipment when I see a need for the feature. The D500 low light focusing for old eyes is a game changer. Nikon currently has a $200 off promotion on the D500, so a new camera will probably be announced around Christmas.

If there were a way to plunk one of the new Expeed 5 processors in my D3x and allow for 9-10 frames per second, I'd do it in a heart beat over a new camera. I like the feel of the D3 over the D500 with grip. Some people like traveling light, I'm one of them, that's why I'm using a FX camera instead of a medium format digital camera.

If I could get Nikon to make two changes to the D500, I'd have them install two CF or XQD slots in the camera instead of XQD and SD, and do away with the tilting screen. I don't do video, so I couldn't care less about using the display for video recording. Having the 100% viewfinder is way better than the D7000 series cameras.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 31, 2016)

NoNotAgain said:


> do away with the tilting screen.



That's the only time I've heard someone say they don't want an articulating display..


----------



## dropout (Oct 31, 2016)

tilting screen is useful for filming and selfies, what do you do with a dying shutter on a dslr?


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 31, 2016)

dropout said:


> what do you do with a dying shutter on a dslr?



It's a good time to replace a broken camera, so many great choices nowadays..


----------



## NoNotAgain (Nov 1, 2016)

dropout said:


> tilting screen is useful for filming and selfies, what do you do with a dying shutter on a dslr?



What to do with a dying shutter? Depends on the camera. Consumer version camera? eBay it as broken and take the money you get for the remains and purchase a new camera. I've yet to see a DLSR camera other than possibly Mamiya or Hasselblad that might be able to use a leaf shutter lens, and not rely on in-camera shutter.

Pro version camera, you spend the $400-500 that it costs for replacement and you're back in business for another 400,000+ activation's.

I don't need or want the articulating screen. It's another flexible cable to break over time which will require a costly repair. On the D500 which costs $1800, an out of warranty repair would probably run $300 or so.

How did you survive without the articulating screen? Same for auto-focus, or image stabilization/vibration reduction? I've never seen a view camera with auto-focus or a host of other features that a lot of people now can't live without.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 1, 2016)

NoNotAgain said:


> How did you survive without the articulating screen?



I've never owned a camera without it; I wouldn't spend on a camera that would only allow me to take photographs from a few specific angles - as seen in the Northrups' Pentax K1 review, each of the compared pro-body full-frame cameras has their pros and cons, but the camera that was easiest to use [and get good pictures with] was the K1 because of its tilt screen.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Nov 1, 2016)

Tony Northrup was a Canon fanboy until early this year. Now he's on the Nikon band wagon. 

I don't know if the Pentax screen besides articulated if it's also touch sensitive. 

Good luck with your choices. 

I'm choosing to limit the number of failure points. While I try to protect my equipment it does get used. I do have concerns about the ribbon cable and the stamped arms the screen attaches to. 

One day, the designers will get together and combine the best features into one camera. Until then, you shop for features that best suit the intended use. I don't do video, so don't have a need in my dslr. I've used right angle view finders by Nikon for years. The same angle finder from my F3 and F4 days fits my newest camera.


----------



## StarHalo (Nov 1, 2016)

My current choice has water poured all over it and then continues operating for the review in this video; now _that's_ some reduced failure points..


----------



## iamlucky13 (Nov 1, 2016)

StarHalo said:


> That's the only time I've heard someone say they don't want an articulating display..


\

You'll notice the D5 does not have one, nor the D4, D800/D810, or D300. It's not like Nikon can't afford to put an articulating display on those bodies if the users wanted them. It's a feature a lot of primarily stills-shooters don't have much use for and can potentially get broken. I think Nikon took a small gamble including one on the D500, but I don't know whether they'll sell more with the tilting screen compared to if they had stuck with a fixed screen.


----------



## martinaee (Nov 8, 2016)

Yeah, I don't know how I feel about them... There are times when I wish my Nikon's had them and other times when I am glad they don't. They are useful, but undeniably more fragile than a screen built in with no articulation and movement.

I know the D500 has one (right?) but I can't see them putting them on future top end Nikons. Most people who get a D4/D5/D6 aren't going to want to trade off any potential body strength and durability for the ability to occasionally use an articulating screen. And if you need a monitor for video you are probably just going to use an external monitor plugged in. Especially with the video capability (slowly) starting to get much better in DSLRs. 4K is now a thing in many DSLRs albeit mostly cropped in 1.5x 4K, which is ridiculous. My D800 can get a full field of view 1080p video shot--- I'm not getting a 4K capable DSLR until it can do the same full FOV for 4K. I guess you can use DX lenses for that so it's not that big of a deal, but for the best quality especially for video you'd want to be using FF lenses.


----------



## ssanasisredna (Nov 10, 2016)

martinaee said:


> 4K is now a thing in many DSLRs albeit mostly cropped in 1.5x 4K, which is ridiculous. My D800 can get a full field of view 1080p video shot--- I'm not getting a 4K capable DSLR until it can do the same full FOV for 4K.



They have to crop so they can do a 1:1 or 2:1 pixel mapping for 4K video.

Full-frame would require either even pixel ratio between 4K video and still frame, or real time image resizing which would take a ton of power to do well which would be the expectation.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Nov 10, 2016)

StarHalo said:


> My current choice has water poured all over it and then continues operating for the review in this video; now _that's_ some reduced failure points..




See if your Pentax can top this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBB-CvqjdCE


----------



## PCC (Apr 15, 2017)

It's been a few years since I've participated in these forums, hence my lack of participation in this thread that I had created so many years ago. 

A few updates:
My D610 has close to 125,000 shutter actuations on it now.
I bought a D500 last year and it already has around 75,000 actuations on it.
I still have my film cameras (FE2, F4, N8008s) and bought a few non-Nikon film cameras as well (old 120 film folder and an Omega 45D).
Lenses: AI'd 24mm f/2.8 K; AI'd 28mm f/3.5; AI'd 35mm f/2 K; PC-Nikkor 35mm f/3.5; two different 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkors; two different 105mm f/2.5s; 18-70mm; 70-200 f/2.8; 70-210 f/4; 35-135mm.

I've been shooting more videos recently than ever before. The D500 is a great camera for that as long as you manually focus. The D610 is great for 1080p but I'm shooting mostly 4K these days.

The Nikon D7500 was released recently and, I believe, it is going to replace both the D7200 and the D5600 at the same time. Simpler, one camera to do it all for the serious amateur. It's not for me. I'm still waiting to see what Nikon has in store for this year since it's their 100th anniversary and great things are expected of them. They have registered four new cameras with the Indonesian government (???) and only announced one camera so far. A few more months of waiting will undoubtedly bring new camera announcements but I've already decided that I'm going with a Lumix G85 as my next camera, more for its video capabilities than for its image quality. We shall see. It'll probably become my time lapse camera to take the load off of the Nikons.


----------



## bykfixer (Apr 16, 2017)

^^ Nice! I really like those Panasonic's. 

About the time I bought a D7000 I read an article by a pro who crossed America with only his celphone, all-the-while knowing its limitations would result in a lot of lost opportunities for great photos. 

Instead he chose to make use of the limitations and set his sites on telling stories along with making the most of those limitations. 
That intrigued me at a time when Nikon (and others) seemed to be upgrading their lineup every 30 days. As part of an attempt at enticing the everyday crowd they got better and better... cheaper and cheaper. I decided to follow the lead of the article I read. 

Frankly I had lost the zeal for all things SLR pix and just wanted to enjoy the scenery for a change. Knowing my cel-cam was never going to focus correctly on the bee crawling on an althia flower, or focus fast enough to capture the hummingbird hovering at a trumpet vine flower, nor do justice to the thunderstorm clouds... or a sunset... I became an observer instead. 

Lately that learn-ed tactic has resulted in dusting off those 2011 relics and using the art of flawed photography revive-ing along with a fixed lens I have a new zeal for capturing photos in the still life platform. The details an SLR can provide are my focus along with a wee bit of digital darkroom tailoring have my creative juices flowing again. 

So while the D700 is still set aside for portraits and those special photos the 7000 just crossed the 4000 pix taken threshold. 

I think my D80 had crossed the 100,000 threshold before I donated it to my son and my Canon D50 had reached 50k iirc before it was donated to my other son. Both use them at car shows. 

So even though the world of DSLR's continues to march forward with lumen wars along with the ability to capture noise free imaging in near total darkness I'm happily going about life with gear that is far superior to my abilities to use them.


----------



## Dr. Mario (Apr 26, 2017)

Consider me in. I got the Nikon D3400 DSLR camera for my birthday a few months ago, which I have been wanting to get one for astrophotography. It ends up doing the job surprisingly well, despite being told that the D3k couldn't do job well (depending on the optical path - in this case the lenses and filters - and camera body, of course). I also had to play around with it until I learn how to set it up the way I want it to run in, as low light photography is extremely challenging. I just don't let the hardware limitation hold me back from exploiting the D3400 to my advantage as it's already an impressive camera at the price point.

However some shots I did doesn't always have to be all about the stars, sometimes environment complement it well. It has to do with how you pick the scene for the picture, like this example.


----------



## PCC (Apr 28, 2017)

The camera isn't the limitation. Your limitations are the limitations.


----------

