Congrats Nikon - You hit one out of the park. I particularly like being able to shoot at 20mp and switch to 46mp for really big results on a sturdy tripod.
SS319 wrote:
At about 16:40 GMT (9:40 Local MDT), the international space station will cross under the partially eclipsed moon ALONG THE RED LINE BELOW. If your camera is pointed in that direction at that time, with your solar filter in place, you should be able to capture the threesome (Sun, Moon, ISS). I think I would use video to make sure I capture the image. If you are at the point where the red line and the eclipse line cross, you will be able to get the ISS at the listed time and the total eclipse later.
Anybody going to Wyoming for the eclipse?
OBTW, the other two ISS passes under the eclipse occur out over the Pacific.
At about 16:40 GMT (9:40 Local MDT), the internati... (
show quote)
-----
Hi - We will be in or around Casper, WY for the totality. Do you know if we should look for the ISS crossing at about 11:43 am MST?
BTW - Any suggestions of where to go in Casper?
Thanks,Dan
-----
MT Shooter wrote:
What you need to keep in mind about the OP is that this is the same guy who PRAISED 42ND Street Photo for selling him a known grey market lens.
One must consider the source for all uninformed comment from posters like this. Their underlying agenda is no more than to stir up competent posters, no more.
-----
About what I'd expect from a desperate salesman. Push the junk you've got and the hell with what the customer needs. You got your facts wrong (no surprise), about two years ago I bought a 105 f2.8 micro from 42nd Street Camera. It was brand new, a USA model and has worked flawlessly. Price $680. -- Just yesterday I sent a grey market D750 to Nikon California for shutter replacement. No problem, covered under warrantee. That's right, a grey market Nikon body is repaired for free by NikonUSA. The only reason you lie about grey market equipment is that you can't compete.
Your opinions are sometimes interesting but often clouded by business concerns. Your competition (42nd St. ...), has better prices than you, your inventory is pathetic, your knowledge is suspect, and your testing is a joke. However, you can take comfort in the large number of low knowledge minions who follow you on UHH. I know who you are and I'm not impressed.
-----
mwsilvers wrote:
To me it is was obvious from the day it was announced that the D7500 was not a replacement for the D7200, but was actually a dumbed down version of the D500. They made that even more obvious by skipping the D7300 and D7400 model names. It is meant to fit a certain niche and Nikon doesn't want it competing with D500. Its lack of several features is intended to encourage those who really want them to stretch their budget to the D500. Canon did exactly the same thing in 2010 when they "upgraded" the Canon 50D, which had a magnesium alloy body and a number of pro/semi pro features, to the 60D with a poly carbonate body with all the pro features removed. This was presumably done to keep the 60D from directly competing with their top APS-C which had been released in 2009, the 7D. The situation seem almost identical to me.
To me it is was obvious from the day it was annou... (
show quote)
-----
You're right, it's definitely a dumbed down 500. You can call plastic anything you want, it is still plastic not metal. The real question is how it compares with the 7200. As already explained, the 7500 falls short in a number of areas. Frankly, the D7200 weakened the demand for the 500. So it had to be replaced with a weaker entry, the D7500.
My concern is that mistakes like the 7500 are only the tip of the iceberg. I've now had to send in three FF Nikon bodies for shutter replacement. Over several years Nikon has kept expanding their 750 recalls. It indicates to me that they don't know what the problem is.
-----
Those are the facts. You can believe DxO or you can believe a neophyte rationalizing his purchase, a salesman who doesn't know how to test a lens, and an old fool living 40 years in the past.
Notice how these self appointed "experts" don't talk about facts.
One card slot
20 v 24mp
No grip
Plastic body
Lower DxO score
Those are the facts. Prove DxO and me wrong. The 7500 is a dumbed down camera for dumbed down amateur photographers, old fools, and camera salesmen who whore themselves out to the latest body solely for the sake of moving the sh@t.
-----
Dan De Lion wrote:
-----
Aside from the obvious degradation of the 7500 in terms of extensive use of plastic rather than metal, only one SD card slot, no battery grip (probably because of the plastic body), the DxO score is in.
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/07/13/nikon-d7500-tested-at-dxomark.aspx/D7200 87
D7500 86
D3400 86
A6300 85
…
So if you want to save some money, buy the D3400 or the superior D7200. It is hard to believe that the 7500 doesn’t have a battery grip. The body is meant for high speed, long, heavy lenses. Such setups are uncomfortable to handle without a grip. I wish Nikon would start getting things right. -- Today I sent in another D750 body for a replacement shutter.
-----
----- br br Aside from the obvious degradation of... (
show quote)
-----
It is pathetic to see neophytes, camera salesmen, and over-the hill oldsters defend the gelded D7500. They are either ignorant or have conflicted interests. The 7500 is better than the 7200 in some ways but worse in many other important aspects. To recognize that these pathetic people have closed their minds to these differences is to recognize how little these loud mouths know about photography.
-----
Gene51 wrote:
There is only one solution to your incessant trolling.
-----
Over the hill, Gene --- Sorry you think facts are trolling. Sorry you think you know more than DxO. Just go ahead and use a body with one slot, no grip, and a plastic body. It will fit your old fashioned style and outdated knowledge. --- Why don't you try to answer the post if you disagree? Because you can't. You are too old to entertain anything accept old fashioned, pedestrian ideas.
Try sticking to the facts.
-----
MT Shooter wrote:
Funny how people who have never USED something feel the need to denigrate it. Actually I am loving the D7500's. The lack of a second card slot isn't an issue for users moving up from lesser cameras, because they all only have one card slot anyway. Its light, has a great grip feel, VERY fast and accurate focusing, a GENUINE Nikon designed and built sensor, and the tilt screen is great. A baby D500 for sure, and at a very good entry price point. They are selling faster than I can get them in. The majority of buyers are moving up from the D5XXX bodies, or from Canon Rebels.
Funny how people who have never USED something fee... (
show quote)
-----
Funny how people who have their judgement clouded by peculiarly interests can't see what's lacking in the 7500.
-----
Just Fred wrote:
I'm not sure of your point. There are multiple sources (I said I did a lot of research) and the majority of them rate the D7500 higher than the D7200. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and I hope you are happy with your D7200.
-----
All you have to do is read the stats and see how DxO rated the 7500. The 7500 is a good camera but obviously was downgraded from the 7200 in several very important ways. I don't own a D7200. If the areas of degradation aren't important to you, you've got a fine camera. Personally I wouldn't use it. IMO Nikon has badly misfired with the 7500, hopefully they'll come out with a D7600 to correct the shortcomings. I'm not holding my breath for that.
-----
Just Fred wrote:
A "dumbed down" D7200? I don't think so, and neither does
Ken Rockwell:
-----
Yes, but what does Mickey Mouse think of the D7500?
-----
-----
Aside from the obvious degradation of the 7500 in terms of extensive use of plastic rather than metal, only one SD card slot, no battery grip (probably because of the plastic body), the DxO score is in.
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/07/13/nikon-d7500-tested-at-dxomark.aspx/D7200 87
D7500 86
D3400 86
A6300 85
…
So if you want to save some money, buy the D3400 or the superior D7200. It is hard to believe that the 7500 doesn’t have a battery grip. The body is meant for high speed, long, heavy lenses. Such setups are uncomfortable to handle without a grip. I wish Nikon would start getting things right. -- Today I sent in another D750 body for a replacement shutter.
-----
RolandHalpern wrote:
Any one have experience with the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR? I have a 70 to 300 Nikkor 4.5 that's OK for nature stuff (mostly what I shoot), and would sure like the added speed of the f/2.8, but wonder about the benefit considering cost and the loss of 100 mm. (My 70-300 is a DX, the 70-200 is FX - I am presently shooting on a D7000).
-----
Check out the Nikkor 70-200 f4 lens. It is as sharp or sharper than any of the 2.8s. At half the price, it is much lighter and IMO handles better.
Remember that in equivalent focal lengths you'll going from a 105-450mm to a 105-300mm lens.
-----
JohnSwanda wrote:
What comes after "Images"? After all, penultimate means "next to the last".
------
My own pics, of course (PICs)
Selfish is what my tab thinks I mean when I type selfie. Thanks Amazon Fire.
-----
tdekany wrote:
There is no belittling here. The op asked what we thought was the difference. In my case I posted 4 links. 3 links belong to talented artists. Then there is the link to Apaflo's.
The only other comment I have is about your last sentence. Are you saying that you would turn $$$ away if people wanted your photos? Really?
-----
The photographic pecking order:
PIX - Joe in the pool taking a selfish with a cell phone
SNAPSHOTS - Joe in the pool as interpreted by aunt Tilly
PICTURES - Joe in the pool with blurred water
SPRAY AND PREY - Joe in the pool at the critical moment
PHOTOGRAPHS - Joe in the pool using a tripod
CAPTURES - The essence of Joe in the pool
and finally IMAGES - the importance of Joe in the pool
I may have left out a grade or two getting to the penultimate level - Images. Now that we've settled that let's get on to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" and other really important questions.
aflundi wrote:
Ok, you've stated what we've all assumed all along, but it recently occurred to me that 1) I have *never* seen it explicitly stated that a full visible spectrum is used, and 2) an MTF would look better if a single wavelength, or narrow band, or selected narrow bands were used.
Companies make what people buy. If people insist on removing AA filters, they'll do it as we've seen. And, if people want impressive looking MTFs and the company gets no credit from the market from doing it correctly, that's what they'll give us.
I don't blame them for giving us what the market demands. They have little choice if they want to stay in business. I'm just trying to find out what the market is encouraging them to do, and thus learn how MTFs really need to be read and interpreted -- which might be very different from what we've done in the past.
Ok, you've stated what we've all assumed all along... (
show quote)
-----
Aflundi – you’ve changed your post from a quest for information to one of a search for conspiracies. If you make false assumptions then anything is possible. Your assumption is that false MTF curves would go unnoticed and uncorrected by the market. Let’s just say that Zeiss advertised MTFs produced without the red end of the spectrum. That they did that in order to misrepresent the performance of their lenses. First, reviews would note that. Second, the informed purchaser would recognize that performance was not up to what the MTF curve indicated. Third, other manufactures would use Zeiss’ lies to their competitive advantage. The result would be a cheapening of the brand and a loss of sales.
I am familiar with Nikon’s, Hassy’s, and some Sigma MTFs. I find them accurate representations of actual lens performance. A good example is Sigma’s new 24-70 art lens (
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/24-70mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm-a ). Those MTF’s show a brand new Art lens with just so-so edge and corner performance compared to Nikon’s VR 24-70 (
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-f%252F2.8E-ED-VR.html#lightbox:/Photography/20052_MTF_01_en.jpg ). If Sigma was going to “cook” the MTFs, you wouldn’t see that kind of chart. Likewise Nikon’s MTFs accurately show the relative strengths and weaknesses of their lenses.
-----