It seems like everyone has had a better experience with metal prints than mine. I just got a 16x20" print last week (promotional deal from "Picture it on Canvas"), and I was very disappointed. My standard test print (same size) from Costco was much more vibrant and had better detail. I wonder if something went wrong?
RRS wrote:
What people seem to forget or just don't know is that all you are doing with "fine tune or micro adjust" is tuning an electronic circuit that runs the motor to focus your lens. It's only the AF that is affected. If you want to just go to manual focus all should be well and if it's not now you need help and it's time to send it in for professional care. In the old days of film we didn't have those problems but what we pay for cameras and lenses you'd like to think that they would work right out of the box. If you try it and it doesn't seem to work ask for help, there are lots of people that know what they are doing and if that doesn't work either you can always go back to the setting of "0" where you started.
What people seem to forget or just don't know is t... (
show quote)
True, it calibrates the AF motor system, it has no effect on focus using live view. As jr168 mentioned above, live view is a good way of obtaining focus, it's just not something I normally do. I bet even "in the old days of film" any of the autofocus cameras could have benefited from fine tuning. It just would have been much more difficult to implement, since there was no live view sensor reading to compare focus with.
joer wrote:
There must be a reason manufacturers don't recommend it.
What are you talking about? The manufacturers are the ones putting that feature in the cameras in the first place. Maybe they don't recommend tweaking it unless you know what you're doing.
As discussed, some lens/camera combinations might not benefit from the fine tune, and it sounds like this was your experience. However, my experience is that many lenses will benefit from tuning. While not strictly necessary, I've been using Reikan FoCal software to make the job much easier.
rocketride wrote:
The term 'KhoiSan' describes a family of languages spoken in southern Africa, by, among others, the Bushmen. These languages have the characteristic (which is observed almost nowhere else in the world) of using various clicking and popping sounds as consonants. If you've ever seen the movie "The Gods Must be Crazy"*, the Bushmen characters were speaking a member of the family.
* One of the five funniest movies I have ever seen.
Yes, I'm familiar with that type of language, didn't know the term 'KhoiSan', though. "The Gods Must be Crazy" is an all-time classic!
rocketride wrote:
I didn't know they actually tried to pronounce '*ist'. I always figured it was a word from one of the KhoiSan languages and the asterisk represented one of those clicks you had to grow up doing to be able to pull off correctly. . .
Ha! At least that's how the reviewers at the time said it was pronounced. Maybe started by Pentax USA marketing after we all asked how the * do you say "*"? I don't understand KhoiSan clicks, unless it's the sound of a shutter.
jerryc41 wrote:
Yeah. I prefer Rebel to Kiss, but I prefer omitting both. Like Nikon's Coolpix line, sometimes a catchy name degrades the camera's image. Just my opinion.
Anyone remember the Pentax *ist, one of their first digital cameras? They pronounced it "kissed", which is just as silly as KISS or Rebel, or Coolpix. I agree with you, Jerry, these names just don't seem to help their image.
Wabbit wrote:
Format the card in the camera Doc ..... if that doesn't work try another card ..... remember that it takes a type 1 compact flash ..... always format the card in the camera .....
For me, a dozen different (but identical specs) cards and numerous attempts to reformat still didn't make it reliably work. Even when a card would start working, simply cycling the power off then on might throw another error code.
spywayman wrote:
Could anyone please help. I was given a well used D70s over a year ago and have since given it to my stepdaughter's son who has had it for about three months.
It has stopped working and the screen states that I cannot take pictures with this card. The display on top of the camera has the flashing letters CHA.
I formatted the card, but to no avail.
To the best of my knowledge, this card has been with the camera for a considerable time. It is a Sandisk and gives about 2300 exposures.
Having passed on this camera as a 21st birthday gift, I feel a little guilty about it's short life. Does anyone have an idea?
Could anyone please help. I was given a well used ... (
show quote)
I've had two D70 cameras used for work that started showing that error. New cards or reformatting attempts sometimes worked, but not consistently. In my line of work, we can't be messing around with a camera that we find unreliable, so we ended up replacing them. That's probably not the solution you were looking for, though. Some of the other postings have some repair solutions that might be worth trying, good luck.
Moxiesmom wrote:
Hey Dave that sounds great, is it on line or the store do you know?
I got an email about it today, it said it's only available online, the promo code is D7000DEAL.
Best Buy is going to have a Black Friday deal on the D7000 with the new 18-140mm lens for $799. You may like this lens better than what you have (?), but if not, you could easily sell it to offset the cost. That would give you a brand new body with full warranty for less money than a refurb.
boberic wrote:
I Know this will sound strange to some but it's true. Every one allways has the best lubricant with them at all times. Nose oil. Gently rub a finger where the nose meets the cheek and you will notice a slight film of oil. Watch makers have used forever. There is only one other place to find this. sharks.. When the filter iv freed up and clean rub nose oil on the threads to keep it from binding. (PS) please don't put your finger in your nose when you use this technique.
Great, now I have to carry a shark around, too. I'll need a bigger bag.
Peekayoh wrote:
Slip of the pen, I meant the D7100 of course, I wouldn't compare with an obsolete camera.
Ah, that makes sense, no worries :)
Other people were talking about the old D700, so I didn't automatically think it was a typo.
Peekayoh wrote:
Not entirely true, at least in relation to the lenses. The sensor density of the D800 is lower than that of the D700 for example which makes the D800 more forgiving of the glass quality.
No, that's incorrect. The D800 has 3 times the pixel density of the D700 (36MP vs 12MP on the same size sensor).
And your glass needs to be good to take advantage of that extra resolution. Thom Hogan's review of the D800 talks about this at some length...
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/current-nikon-dslr-reviews/nikon-d800--d800e-review.htmlThat said, I'm in the "waiting for D400" group.
Mogul wrote:
It's sad; I know. The worst cases of G.A.S. are those in which we are faced with a decision between two similar, well-built pieces of gear. As most of us who suffer from G.A.S. (especially the terminal stages) know, the only possible solution is to acquire both pieces of equipment and develop justification for having done so. You appear to be a master of such justification. You have my undying admiration! 8-) 8-) 8-)
LOL! Yes, I have a serious case of GAS sometimes. Before I had the 16-85, I had the 18-105, which made it easier to justify the 17-50 purchase. Then I had to have the 16-85 instead of the 18-105, justified by "better image quality" and "metal lens mount".
Can't anyone get the specs right so we know which lens to discuss? Your post says 15-50, you correct it to 17-50, and your link is for the 17-70. And at least one of the replies is for an 18-50, which is an older version.
I currently own the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and the Nikon 16-85. I have owned the Sig 17-70 f/2.8 - 4.0 in the past.
Mogul, I've shared your dilemma, I wanted to decide between the 17-50 and 16-85. Unfortunately, I couldn't make up my mind, so right now I have both :)
I truly did love the 17-70, and I'm not quite sure why I sold it. It was a little soft at 70mm wide open, but otherwise a very nice lens. I got the urge to get a constant f/2.8, which is why I now have the 17-50. It's exceptional, one of my favorites. The 16-85 is newer to me, I've owned it for only a few months but so far it's also been excellent. For me, it comes down to the application. For events and situations where I need the wider aperture, I go with the Sigma. For hiking and landscape type photography, I'm more inclined to take the Nikon.