Nikon just released firmware updates for nine different DSLR cameras. This was first on the Nikon Rumors website where they announced firmware updates for the D4, D4s, Df, D800, D800E, D810, D810A, D7100 and D7200 cameras. Most of the changes are for adding AF-P lens support to these cameras which Nikon had previously said were incompatible with the new AF-P 70-300mm lens.

At first it seemed to be great news, but in reading some of the comments posted by others in the comments section, it seems that this new Nikon firmware update is creating issues with third party lenses. A number of people that have Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART and 50mm f1.4 ART lenses have reported that after downloading the new firmware, their Sigma lenses did not autofocus properly anymore.

Just something to be aware of if anyone plans on updating their cameras with the new firmware so they can use the Nikon AF-P lenses and also has Sigma lenses.

I think you are still missing my point. You make a statement that you won't pass judgement on an image, and before you reach the period in the same sentence you do exactly what you said you wouldn't do, you state that - "in [your] opinion [it] is a poorly captured image presented in black and white" this is confusing. If it is your opinion that it was a poorly captured image, is that not a passing judgement?

I maintain that what he did was not an accident and a tour de force of his processing skills was able to "salvage" a poor image. I believe him when he described, in his anecdote - which I hope you read - that he used his previous experience with lunar exposures to set the camera for this shot. He did give it some thought. And he was the type of photographer so comfortable with his pre-visualization skills that he could already imagine the final product even before he triggered the shutter. His whole Zone System is based on that pre-visualization and understanding of light. I don't agree that it was a poorly executed image. I do know, from the 1000s of B&W prints I have made over the years, that, particularly with natural subjects, the contact print is rarely good enough to show, but it is a great place to start when deciding how you are going to execute the final product.

I take it you have never processed your own photos. I have a lot of respect for you - but in this case, your lack of experience and misconceptions are clearly preventing you from seeing the bigger picture. Not to be disparaging, but it reminds me of when I tried to get my kids to eat zucchini - the three of them joined in a chorus of "but we don't like ZUCCHINI!!!" To which I responded, "how do you know, you've never eaten it" to which they responded, "we just know, we dont' like it!!!" It was served, they complained then they ate it and didn't die. All three love zucchini these days - moral to the story - try the things that don't make sense to you before you try them - you may be surprised. Or remain stuck in your poorly informed opinion. Your choice. You've got nothing to lose in trying, and you may actually end up learning and using the new skill-set to make better pictures.

I have several free and "included" post processing programs that I have been dabbling with. Piccasa, Canon, PhotoShop Express, AfterShot 2, Dell's Vista photo editor, to name a few, but nothing really connected as a system. Bear in mind, I'm just learning.

Last night I was real close to ordering PaintShop Pro Ultimate Edition 2018, but was a little confused on Corel's site, so I went to Amazon. The Ultimate 2018 edition had really bad reviews. Advertised programs that were not on the disk, programs that didn't work or even load, and more.

I was looking at this in particular because it included AfterShot 3 and some others that I thought would make a good integrated starting platform.

So I looked up PaintShop Pro (several versions) and AfterShot 3 as separate programs. The reviews of these were very good. Comparisons to PhotoShop and LightRoom were back and forth, plus and minus, talking about the differences and the advantages of one over the other. Totally different than the Ultimate Edition. At 2am I shut everything down and went to bed.

I was wondering if anyone has any first hand knowledge of this and would share their experiences.

I am not looking for a flood of opinions trying to goad me into Adobe. Maybe someday, not today. Two things on my horizon are the purchase of an RV and traveling to see some of the sites posted on this forum, and having a program that is not constantly being updated. I may even think about a new laptop because my HP drives me crazy. My 80D purchase seems to be disappearing in the distance.

Thank you all in advance.

Hello all,

I have been sitting on the sidelines reading UHH posts for well over a year. It's time I jumped in with both feet. My name is jerry, I live in NJ the garden state and I am an avid photo buff taking pictures since I was 14 years old. I am now 71 and love photography more than ever. I started out with a Kodak Retina IIC with a 2.8 Schneider Kreuznach lens, a sekonic L-23C light meter, a Bogen tripod and a Kodachrome paper sheet packed in with the film. I've had Nikkormats, Canon A-1's, AE'1s, and everything in between. I've had major gas most of my life.
Anyway, quick flash to the present, I traded in all my Canon digital equipment and bought Sony mirrorless. Somehow, I fell in love with Sony and I'm getting superb results. I plan on posting my pics as soon as I can. I love nature and landscape photography...also macro.
Equipment list:
Sony 7rMark 3
Sony alpha 6500
Sony Rx100 Mark 5
lenses...55mm Zeiss f/1.8, 16-35mm Zeiss f/4, 90mm Sony Macro f/2.8, Sony 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6, Sony 70-200mm f/4.
I look forward to becoming more active and sharing thoughts with my fellow (what's the feminine for fellow??) hedgehoggers.

BTW, I use LR 6 and Photoshop CS6.

The D-500 has an APS-C / DX size sensor, 23.5mm x 15.7mm and about 21MP with a pitch as you said of 4.22 microns.

The D-850 has a larger Full Frame / FX size sensor, 35.9mm x 23.9mm, about the same size as a 35mm film negative and about 46MP with the 4.35 microns.

The pixels are packed closer together for the D-500 than the D-850 even though the D-850 has more pixels. Pitch is just a way of expressing density.

For the D-850 to have the same pixel density as the D-500 it would have to have an approximately 49.8MP for its sensor. Not really that different.

That is 21 * 1.54^2 = 49.8MP. For the 24MP D7200 DX camera it would be 24 * 1.54^2 = 56.9MP!

OK, my 200-500 is mounted on a D500 which gives my the viewing angle of 300-750 mm. I cannot speak to what distance you will be at, but, for me, it covers everything I need. I shoot exclusively in Florida Wetlands. There are occasions that I am too close, so, I carry a 70-200 2.8 on a spider belt for close up. But, for about 98% of my shots, the 300-750 works fine. I find that most of my shots come in at a viewing angle of 300-600 mm. If a bird in out there carrying nesting material I find myself deciding how much of the bird I want in the frame, if the bird is flying, you must use caution trying to fill the frame with the zoom cause if you fill the frame during tracking it can become tricky, you lose the feet on you loose the head. So, I tend to zoom back a little and try to fill 60-75% of the frame with the bird. I have not missed a shot yet by not having the extra reach of the 150-600.
Just so you know, I shoot with a LOT of folks down here who HAVE owned the 150-600. Many, many of them have switched over to the 200-500. You might be interested in knowing why. It is because those folks found that the get more KEEPERS with the 200-500, it not only seems to focus faster but it focuses more accurately than the 150-600 FOR BIRDS IN FLIGHT. For static birds, the 150-600 will do fine.