Since posts show the author, anyone with half a brain can skip those that are beyond his ability to understand.
Maybe whoever reads these to you should have explained that.

Perhaps you could send me a list of rules that are actually enforced and which ones it's safe to ignore.
God knows I'd hate to offend anyone on a forum that's ostensibly related to art.

Of COURSE I know that! What, did you think I just stumbled on this photo while browsing the internet???

I obviously picked this photo to make a point about the horrors of sky replacement and all the other crappy options available to substandard photographers these days for ruining photographs. Christ, where does it end???? As if poorly done HDR weren't bad enough, now we have sky replacement (Buy now, fancy skies available for a limited time!). Why not add some bikini models to spice up your shots a bit? Maybe the new Luminar AI will add them automatically if your original photograph is lame enough. So much easier than actually taking a decent photograph to begin with.

I am constantly hoping this site will be more than it actually is, and I'm constantly disappointed. Maybe it's time to call it a lost cause and just move on.

Yeah, I might also have noted "Do not make posts in all capital letters. This includes topic titles" but somehow those posts never seem to get censored.

I want to thank the moderator for removing both of my posts. It really confirms how gutless and pathetic this forum is. Just for grins, maybe you could explain how posting a picture of the Mona Lisa with a slightly Photoshoped grin is so horrible. Or maybe not, it really doesn't matter.
By the way, if anyone is interested in the photos that were deemed unfit for this august forum, feel free to PM me.


So sad to see a few weak minds cause censorship of the forum. Oh well, lowest common denominator eh?

Physician, heal thy self.

Aaaaargh, you're right. Sorry about that.

You might be right. The metric system may be beyond the reach of some people.

Actually, I don't think the basic idea is so dumb. There's nothing wrong with revisiting an existing system to see if it can be improved. However, I think some of his solutions are misguided and his explanations are confused or confusing.
So, my take, point by point.

Shutter speed vs duration: He is correct. Shutter speed is a misnomer and perhaps bulkier than needed. The so-called shutter speed of a camera is indeed a duration and not a speed at all so why not label it as such? The idea of using msec instead of fractional seconds also makes sense to me. Of course his proposal, as I understand it, is a bit awkward for durations greater than 1 sec, but that could be fixed.

Aperture: His discussion is confusing and wrong in some places. However, he has at least identified a problem area. Very few people rally understand fstops. Even fewer understand tstops. I doubt if 10% of the members of UHH could correctly define either one or be able to tell the difference in available light between f3.5 and f8.
I think the problem is based on the fact that light reaching the sensor is a quadratic function of the lens diaphram diameter and very few photographers are able to do basic math in their heads. Using a system where the square root is already incorporated seems like an improvement.

ISO: There is nothing wrong with this system. Who cares what the acronym stands for? It is simply a linear amplification factor and easy to understand. I was surprised that he suggested changing the name to luminance, which is totally misleading. If the name needs to be changed, change it to amplification, which is all it is.

Focal length change to view: I'm not sure how this is really helping anyone. Focal length is pretty easy to understand and I'm not sure view is any easier. Different focal length lenses are going to have different fields of view on different format cameras no matter what. Does anyone really think it's clearer or more intuitive to specify field of view rather than focal length?

So, I would agree with fixing shutter speed and maybe linearizing aperture. I think focal length and ISO are fine as they stand.

Maybe they're trying to get an image of him not lying. Good luck with that.

Yes it's overcooked. Of course you are free to push sliders as far as you like, just as you are free to prefer Mogen David to Château d'Yquem, just don't expect others to agree with you.

Yes, I'm pretty sure it's the lens as it happens on both the bodies I've tried it on. Luckily (?) the problem is not intermittent for me. It happens every time! Very frustrating.

Thanks. Sadly these posts offer no help and I didn't see the one I was remembering.

I remember a posting a while back about a problem using Nikon's 200-500mm lens with a D850. I wasn't able to find the original post so I wanted to repost and see if there was any resolution to this problem.

I am also having a problem with this lens. If I try to shoot with either continuous release mode, the camera freezes up with an ERR message and has to be power cycled to clear it. This happens with both a D850 and a D7100. Oddly, if I keep the aperture at 5.6 it works properly. If I keep the zoom to around 250mm or less it works properly at any aperture. Nikon tech support was worthless so I'm about to send the lens in for repair but I wanted to check in here just in case.

Yes larrypage, you are correct. The grip with battery and charger is indeed expensive, but it is still less than the cost a D500. I have no idea why the grip costs so much and there is no way I would pay the money for such a marginal improvement. [side note: Is this grip compatible with other Nikon cameras? Will it be compatible with the next upgrade? If so, the cost is basically amortized over those bodies as well. Still, the price seems like a Nikon ripoff.] However, the point remains valid, a D500 along with a D850 adds very little value.