Dream on!

Ten years ago Nikon charged a premium for the Df and sold a ton of them. The Df cost 37% more than the D610 selling at the same time, yet the D610 could do everything the Df could do AND offered 50% higher resolution!

Why would they NOT do the same with the Zf?

If the Zf is 24MP, expect it to cost roughly 35% more than the Z7 Mark II (~$2600)... or about $3500.

It ain't cheap to look cool!

Yes, it is.

But enabling or disabling Back Button Focus (BBF) can be a little confusing.

In the factory default the AF-On button on the back of the camera is actually set up to provide BBF. When someone "sets up" BBF, they actually go into the control customizing screen and REMOVE autofocus from the shutter release button. So to "disable" BBF, they need to re-enable AF on that shutter release button. This is how it's done...

Go into the menu and navigate to the Yellow Wrench tab.
Navigate to C.Fn III Operation/Others (...)
Move down to item 4., Custom Controls.
There you will see graphical representation of all the camera controls you can modify.
The first item is the shutter release button. When that's highlighted in red, press the "Set" button.
This will display the three options that can be chosen: AF/Metering start, Metering only, Exposure Lock.
A camera that's set to BBF will have the center item, Metering Only, highlighted.
To re-enable standard focusing method, move to highlight the lefthand icon, AF/Metering start.
Press the "Set" button again and navigate back out of the menu.

This will re-establish AF start with half-press of the shutter release button (both metering and, when lenses have it, image stabilization will also start). You also can press the AF-On button with your thumb to start AF, metering and IS.

The same procedure is used to enable BBF (remove AF start from shutter release button). Except the center "meter" icon is selected at C.Fn III, 4.

Page 498 to 500 of the manual cover the above (and more).

P.S. It also is possible to swap the function of the * button (AE Lock) and the AF-On button.

Use your computer's operating system to create the folder you want. Then use the OS to open the unwanted subfolder, select all the images inside, drag & drop them to the new folder. All this can easily be done outside LR.

Now go into LR and do a fresh Import of the images in that new folder you created above. LR may tell you the images are already imported and not want to duplicate them. Tell it to do so anyway.

Then delete the subfolder you moved the images out of.

Done.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from trying to manage folders within LR.... it isn't really necessary when creating, naming or moving folders. All that can be done in the computer OS.

Nothing is actually "inside" LR. All LR does is selectively display what's on your computer: the folder tree and thumbnails of the images, as "Imported". The original images are still in the folders on the computer.

If you move or rename one of your image folders using the operating system... i.e., outside of LR... LR will then show that folder grayed down and flagged with a question mark. LR can't find the folder. Right click on the folder in LR and a little menu will pop up that allows you to point LR to the new folder location or name, which will correct the problem.

Used Sigma 70-300mm in Canon and Nikon mounts are selling for under $100. It would probably cost more than that to fix it.

The "problem" is that you are using flash AND a manual aperture lens. This makes for a few added challenges.

First of all, apparently you are working in a relatively low light situation where the flash is needed to provide sufficient lighting. I.e., the flash would be the primary light source (ambient light is too low for proper exposure).

If you were using a lens with electronic aperture control, such as the Fuji 60mm f/2.4 Macro, the lens' aperture is maintained wide open until the actual moment of exposure. It then stops down to your chosen aperture. This allows you a brighter viewfinder to be able to see the subject for composition and focus. A lens like the Laowa 65mm doesn't do that. It's aperture is completely manual. As you set it smaller, it actually closes down reducing the amount of light entering the camera.

The viewfinder is further darkened by "light fall off" at high magnification. The added extension of the lens makes light travel farther, which reduces it's strength. (Light loses strength exponentially... meaning that doubling of distance will reduce light to 1/4 its original strength. I don't have that lens, but do have a Canon 65mm lens with high magnification capabilities. It probably isn't exactly the same, there are physical differences in the lenses, but when my Canon 65mm is set to 2:1 and f/8, the lens' "effective" f-stop as far as exposure is concerned is f/24! That's a lot of light lost to fall off!

So that's what is happening. But you probably want to know what to do about it. There are several possibilities:

1. Use that lens just as you have been, opening the aperture as wide as possible to compose and focus, then stop down manually prior to exposure. This is slow and risks bumping precise focus. Your subject may move before you can complete the shot. Plus there's a limit to how much you can open up the lens, so in some situations may not be enough.

It's tricky, but doable. I used an adapted, vintage 90mm lens for this shot of a bee on a California poppy...


That adapted lens is fully manual... both focus and aperture control.... much like your Laowa lens I probably took 75 shots to get a few I liked. Many missed focus or the subject was half out of frame, flying away. Note that compared to you I wasn't using nearly as high magnification (less than 1:1), but was using a smaller f/11 aperture, higher ISO 400, I did not use flash at all and my subject was in full sun. (As a side note: I had to set the camera to "release shutter without lens", because it doesn't "know" when a non-electronic lens is installed).

2. Set the lens to the desired aperture, then increase your ISO. This assumes your camera has an electronic viewfinder (EVF) and that it provides "exposure simulation" (rear LCD monitor can be used on some cameras with optical viewfinders). The risk with this is that a high ISO will add noise to the image. It also will change the nature of the image. Ambient light will become more prominent and the flash will perform as "fill", rather than "full". Here are some examples of how the lighting makes for different image styles...

FULL FLASH (hides a busy background by minimizing ambient light)


FILL FLASH (exposure partly relies upon ambient light, allowing more of background to be seen)


MACRO FULL FLASH (very high magnification, approx. 3.5:1, ringlight flash set to 8:1 ratio)


MACRO FILL FLASH (low magnification, twinlight flash set to 1:1 ratio, black felt background behind subject)


3. Use the camera and lens in the same way, but use a different light source that provides some sort of continuous lighting rather than flash. There are a number of ways this can be done. For example, maybe just find better ambient lighting. Or use a reflector to bounce more ambient light onto your subject. Or use continuous supplemental lighting like an LED panel.

AMBIENT LIGHT ALONE


AMBIENT LIGHT ALONE (waited for sweet late afternoon light and was able to position subject in front of a darker, shaded background)


AMBIENT LIGHT + BOUNCED LIGHT (primarily used to create the catchlight in the bee's eye)


4. Buy a different lens... one that has an electronically controlled aperture, such as the Fuji 60mm f/2.4 Macro or Fuji 80mm f/2.8. The "problem" here is that these lenses are more expensive and they don't offer as high magnification. In fact, the Laowa can do 2:1 (2X life size), while the Fuji 80mm can do 1:1 (1X) and the Fuji 60mm only 1:2 (0.5X). You can add macro extension tubes to those Fuji lenses to push them to higher magnification, though it would take a lot to get the Fuji 60mm anywhere near 2X!

While those Fuji lenses also have autofocus, personally I think that's less of a priority for macro. I often turn AF off and just focus manually. It's often faster and easier. But for ease of use in a wide variety of situations, an electronically controlled lens aperture is preferable to manual only, like the Laowa.

FWIW, I mostly use Auto White Balance. Especially when working in mixed lighting situations. I'm able to do that because I always shoot RAW or RAW+JPG, so can easily tweak WB, if needed. In certain situations I will use a Custom White Balance. I NEVER use any of the WB presets. Those are wrong more often than they are right. I also never manually set color temp. (It's only part of the WB equation... there also is "tint".) Auto WB or Custom WB... that's it. (P.S. I also carry a neutral WB target as well as a set of Warm Cards for "filter effects" with Custom WB.)

It's not food. It's "designer" soap! It's made to look like food.

While there are other ways to deal with the reflections besides a tilt/shift lens, this was one of some 200 or 250 shots for a catalog. The TS-E lens helped speed up the process.

Lot's of good recommendations have already been offered....

I just wanted to note a couple things...

Unless you really prefer one, a ballhead is not necessary for landscape photography. It may not even be the most ideal choice. I am not sure what you mean by "nature" photography... that could be wildlife or macro/close-up or something else. A ballhead may not be ideal for those, either. While they are compact, able to support heavy gear and there is a wide variety to choose among, ballheads can slip, may effected by dirt and be can difficult to use with very much precision, such as might be wanted for landscape and close-up/macro.

Photographing active wildlife is some of the most challenging and often means having to track subjects as they move. A gimbal head is ideal for that purpose. But a "full size" gimbal replaces any other head on the tripod, making it less useful for other things like landscapes and close-up/macro. There are "gimbal adapters" that work in conjunction with a ballhead.

For landscape a pan/tilt head can work very well. The only "down side" is that many heads of this type have protruding control handles that limit how compact the tripod is for storage and can catch on branches, etc., while carrying it in the field.

There are specialized types of pan/tilt heads.... more compact units with lower profile controls. Another type is a "geared head" that not only has lower profile controls, but the controls also give more precise control. For landscape and, to some extent, close-up/macro, this type of head may solve some common ballhead problems. The down side to geared heads is that they are rather heavy, don't have a very high support rating and tend to be somewhat pricey. They're also virtually unusable for active wildlife photography... simply too slow to move around.

So what is desirable for one type of photography may actually be a detriment for another type. I suggest you carefully take these into consideration, depending upon your planned uses of the tripod.

Finally, if not already doing so, you may want to take this opportunity to start using the Arca-Swiss quick release system. It is by far the most common, with many manufacturers making components and accessories compatible with it. Depending upon the type of head you choose, this may be more than just a convenience. For example, Arca compatible plates are required for nearly all gimbal heads and mandatory to use a gimbal adapter. They also are needed to use most macro/close-up focusing rails and some other accessories.

There are quite a few 12mm, 14mm, 15mm and 18mm lenses available in F-mount: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/SLR-Camera-Lenses/ci/274/N/4288584247?filters=fct_fixed-focal-lengths_2207%3A14mm%7C15mm%7C18mm%7C12mm%2Cfct_lens-format-coverage_3332%3Afull-frame-lenses%2Cfct_lens-mount_3442%3Anikon-f

Do you require autofocus? If you'll just be shooting landscapes, maybe manual focus would be adequate? Out of the 22 lenses listed above, only five have autofocus. And of those, only three have the focus drive motor in the lens itself. The other two must rely upon the focusing motor in the camera body (which your D850 has, but other Nikon including all the Z-series mirrorless don't have). I have a manual focus ultrawide lens for one of my cameras that serves me well. The rest of the lenses I use with it... less wide to tele... I needed AF (not getting any younger).

Will you be doing night shots? Astrophotography? If so, a larger aperture might be desirable. f/1.8 like the Sigma.

However, smaller aperture f/2.8 or even f/4 can be smaller, lighter, might have better corner-to-corner, edge-to-edge sharpness or less vignetting. Smaller max aperture lenses also can be considerably more affordable.

Finally, do you want to be able to use filters? If so, some of the lenses have convex front elements that make it a bit of a problem. There may be special filter holders for oversize square/rectangular filter holders available to fit certain lenses... but those ain't cheap and add a bit of bulk to carry around. Standard screw-in filters are a more convenient and affordable option, if possible.

NOTE: Two of the lenses on the above list are fisheyes, so might not be what you're seeking. There's no way to exclude them from the search tools on the B&H site. Note too that in many cases there are also used copies of some of those lenses available. And, of course, you might want to search for used copies of them elsewhere, too. You also might Google reviews of any that interest you.

The cellophane on these products was a bit tricky to light. The client didn't want to remove it. I used a Canon 45mm TS-E lens to "dodge" some problem reflections.

Based on the serial number, that's a Kino Precision-made "Kiron" lens. Vivitar lenses with "22xxxxxx" serial numbers were made by them. They are considered some of the best of their day. The company was founded by a bunch of ex-Nikon techs. In an interview the company's CEO explained, "Kiron is Nikon spelled sideways."

Sorry you didn't enjoy the lens. Maybe it wasn't one of their best (I've had Kiron 100mm macro and 24mm lenses that were excellent). It also may have been better with a hood and/or maybe it was dropped and has hidden internal damage.

My guess is that it is NEITHER USA or gray market. It is more likely a scam. RUN AWAY AS FAST AS YOU CAN!

That price is absolutely absurd! A Canon 5D Mark IV with EF 24-105mm II lens on sale at an authorized dealer is currently selling for $3599. That's a $200 discount off the regular price.

Do you SERIOUSLY think someone can offer the same for $3000 less? 85% off?

I don't know why you aren't considering the R5 mirrorless with the RF 24-105mm instead.... They have that for $4000 off! You could save even more!

Yeah, right!

A Google search found "NFNebraska" listed as scammers several places. (Not to be confused with "NFM", "Nebraska Furniture Mark", which appears to be legit.)

HIDE THE CHILDREN AND YOUR CREDIT CARDS!

When a killdeer hangs around, it's probably protecting a nest.

They build their nests on the ground. The eggs are somewhat camouflaged to look like stones and can be hard to spot.

Killdeer parents will "fake a broken wing" if you get too close to their nest. They do that to distract predators from the nest.

First of all, you don't "copyright" your images.

"Copyright" is a noun, not a verb.

Copyright is the ownership of intellectual property, such as a work of art, in this case a photograph.

If you take the image, the copyright is automatically yours (except for some specific instances, such as when employed as a staff photographer).

You actually don't need to do anything. If someone uses your image without your permission, infringes upon your copyright, you can ask them to cease and desist and/or try to charge them a little for the usage.

But there are things you can do to enhance the protection of your copyright:

- Add copyright ownership information to the EXIF data embedded in your images. Many cameras can be set up to do this in a basic way. It also can be added via much image editing software (I.e., I have Lightroom to add info automatically to all my images during the initial Import.) More on this later.

- Add a watermark to your images. Some people don't like them, but they are there for a reason. More on this later.

- Keep your images displayed online relatively small. Personally I make most of my images no more than 700 or 800 pixels on the long side. That's large enough to see the image, but too small to make much of a print.

- Register your copyright. This is done at the government copyright office. It can be done in batches by putting a large number of image thumbnails onto digital media and sending it in with a payment. The images are then added to a searchable database where would-be users are expected to check before using an image. Registration of your copyright(s) greatly enhances protection, which I'll describe in more detail below.

Here's how it works...

You already own your copyright and can pursue someone who misuses your images. You don't need to do anything, but your recourse is limited. You don't need to mark the image in any way, but can put a watermark or "signature" on it to enhance protection. Do not remove the EXIF data and add copyright ownership info there, if you wish.

No. For several decades now it has NOT been necessary to put the copyright symbol © or the word "copyright" or the year on the image. When you see those on an image originating in the US, it's probably old... taken before 1989 (the year the US finally joined the international Berne Convention of 1886/revised 1971, which does not require these marks). Any unique signature or "mark" will do. And even that may not be necessary... the uniqueness of the photo can stand on its own. But I do advise at least putting a small signature on your images (more on why below). If you plan to sell your images as stock photography, I discourage putting the year on them. Some would-be buyers might skip over a perfectly good image that they perceive as "old" because of a date imprinted on it (with digital the date is in the EXIF anyway).

When you do no more than that, you can ask people to discontinue any unapproved, misuse of your images and ask for "standard compensation" for how they are using the image (some uses have no monetary value, while other "commercial" use may be quite valuable). If they fail to comply you can sue in your local small claims court. Any court decision is enforced by local law enforcement and since any monetary claim will be small, it will be very low priority. If the infringer is local you may be able to get a judgment against their income, if they refuse to pay. You have to self-represent in small claims court and will NOT be compensated for any legal or court costs. Any lawyer you consult will be paid out of your own pocket.

However, if you properly REGISTER your copyright you will have much more potential. First, you can bring suit against any infringement in FEDERAL court. Further, in addition to "standard compensation" the court can award you with various penalties over and above that amount. You also can be compensated for legal and court costs. As a result, an intellectual property attorney is more likely to take your case on a "contingency" basis, where you don't need to pay up front out of your pocket. An example of added penalties, last time I checked the court could levy $30,000 fine per instance for "removal of copyright protections", such as Photoshopping out a watermark or signature, or removal of EXIF information. When you hear about people receiving huge awards in copyright cases, you can rest assured those are registered copyrights.

If in the US more information is available and registration is done at https://www.copyright.gov/. Other countries, if that's where you're located, have similar.

FWIW, I ain't a lawyer by any means... I'm just a photographer who has had to deal with a few issues. You should consult an actual intellectual property attorney rather than taking my word for anything.

Finally, not every copyright infringement is worth pursuing. For example, someone reposting one of my watermarked images on Facebook or Instagram or wherever is getting no monetary benefit themselves and are actually doing me a favor with a form of "free advertising" (my watermark is the URL of my online photo galleries, although they are currently inactive... I have actually encouraged reposting on the various social media and provided links for people to use). There was a case a couple years ago where the winner of a photo contest had actually submitted someone else's image, representing it as their own. There was a modest monetary prize (that was rescinded by the contest organizer), but even as reprehensible as this misuse was, it would not be worth pursuing in court. But some other misuses are certainly worth going after.

Bob Jackson was photographer I worked with years ago. He took the photo of Jack Ruby shooting JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas police station. I'm sure you've seen that image. Bob was a staff photographer at the Dallas Morning News at the time, so the newspaper owned the copyright. But when he retired they gifted him the copyright of the image, which he and his estate have resold any number of times... probably earning them something in the seven figure range over the years. Editorial use isn't high paying... maybe $25 or $50 or $100, depending upon circulation, size and prominence of the image (maybe more if used as a cover shot). But it adds up when an image is used thousands of times!

Another photographer I knew specialized in commercial and travel work. I'm sure you would recognize some of his work, too. He has shot many advertising images that were used world wide. Some of his jobs cost upwards of $100,000... but he also always retained the copyright and sold his images as stock photography. In fact, he was one of the top five stock photographers in the world (based on annual income, some $6 to $8 million a year in his case). He had two full time staffers handling just the stock "sideline" of his studio. Some of his images sold over and over. One that he took while hanging out the sunroof of a car in Paris, after a few too many glasses of wine earned him over $150,000 in usage fees in ten years. Needless to say, he was pretty careful about registering and protecting his copyright!

Years ago photographer George Lepp made some images for Kodak, which they used on billboards all over the world, paying him $20,000 US in usage fees. The same image was used inside a textbook with a relatively small printing of around 10,000 copies, where usage fees were $250.

I shoot a lot of sports and some wildlife with 300mm f/4 (3 lb.)and 100-400mm (3.5 lb.) lenses. They balance nicely and comfortably on my 2+ lb. DSLRs with battery grips. They are APS-C cameras, but their body is the same size and weight as some full frame. Those are what I consider reasonably "large telephoto" lenses that I tend to hand hold a lot. To me the Sony a6000-series feel awkward even with a 70-200mm f/2.8 (about 2.5 lb.), let alone an even larger lens like that 300mm or 100-400mm.

Plus I notice you have that 400mm lens on a tripod. I was referring specifically to hand held shooting. I put my 300mm f/2.8 (6 lb.) and 500mm f/4 7.5 lb.) lenses on a tripod too... or at least a monopod. I rarely shoot them hand held... at least not for more than a few minutes!

Another small "issue" I have with the a6000-series design is they are "right eye" cameras. The eyeport being located far left is fine when using one's right eye to the viewfinder... which can be good shooting sports, allowing "both eyes open". However, some of my shooting days go 10, 12 or more hours. I often switch eyes when the other gets tired. A centered pentaprism (or EVF) and viewfinder eyeport makes shooting with either eye pretty easy.

I do have a small mirrorless (Canon M5). I bought it especially for the compact size and unobtrusiveness, as a "street photography", travel and candid portrait rig. Even with four small lenses (all primes), it weighs about the same as one of my DSLR bodies. In fact, it's so compact and light that I found it really uncomfortable until I fitted with an L-bracket (which is something I never do with DSLRs... not a fan of L-brackets, except in this case).

But, all that's just me and what I'm comfortable with. I can see where someone else might really like the Sony APS-C camera design. Another response suggested going to a store and handling the various cameras being considered, which I agree is a good idea if possible.



The Canon R7 would be my choice, too. 32.5MP! (Not to pick nits, but the Z50 is close to 21MP! )

Yes, I recommended sticking with Nikon and the Z50 for sake of familiarity and compatibility with current gear... as well the original poster's current Nikon DSLRs (21MP and 24MP) and the Sony they mentioned (24MP). Yes, they "dreamed of" 46MP D850, but seem to be "getting by" with a whole lot less.