Chefneil wrote:
OK, so one of the pins in the camera for the CF memory chip is gone and now I cannot store any of my fantastic images. (Silly me and my attempting to fix/straighten the pin, so let's not go into recrominations on that subject)
It wll cost about $200 to put a new CF reader into the camera. Not sure if a Canon 40D is worth it---but that is not why I am writing this!
I want to create a jury-rig.
I think if I use a usb thumb drive, I can fool the camera into saving images there.
Has any one tried this? and if so, what kind of luck have you had?
OK, so one of the pins in the camera for the CF me... (
show quote)
I was daffy enough to read your non-descriptive title, but am not daffy enough to jerry-rig a memory card!
rosauraortiz wrote:
Last year the last patriot of my moms family past away He was my grandfathers brothers, a sibling of three. I asked his kids if it was ok to take some photos of the event, so I can give them to my mom since she was unable to attend and got an ok. then last month a first cousin of my mom past away of cancer and I also asked the oldest sibling if it was ok to take some pictures, and she told me that that was unrespect full for the family, So I didn't take any for respect to her, but I do regret because I saw family members that I didn't know and I will probably not see for a long time. I guess is a thing of preference I personally don't see nothing wrong with it. I took lost of photos of my dad's funeral and when I browse thru my photos I get to see the people that attended and that I haven't seen for a while. what are your thoughts in this matter.
Last year the last patriot of my moms family past ... (
show quote)
Why not? After all, a funeral IS a family event.
BebuLamar wrote:
I know that the Nikon F4 doesn't support VR and the F5 does support VR.
According to Nikon.
The Nikon VR system makes use of the AF sensors to work.
Nikon digital SLR (Nikon FX/DX format)
cameras, F6, F5, F100, F80-Series/
N80-Series*, F75-Series/N75-Series*,
F65-Series/N65-Series*
Thanks for that. I just happen to be using my F5 today. :)
jerryc41 wrote:
You might remember that I posted a couple of days ago about a Nikon 80-200mm lens I bought on ebay from Japan. It's a beautiful lens, but I discovered that it makes too much noise when focusing. I contacted the seller, and he'll accept the return and refund my postage. You can't do much better than that.
What?? Didn't you post a couple of pictures taken with it, and say you were satisfied? By the way, mine is nearly 10 years old, and is as quiet as when new.
sloscheider wrote:
How far back in models can one go with a VR lens and still expect it to work? Any film bodies?
Interesting question. How would one know if it were working?
If I have deciphered correctly, it is a rail against perceived elitists who speak in photographic terms he does not understand.
alandg46 wrote:
I already did. At $400 from KEH, I'm willing to take the chance.
Gene brought up a point I never would have thought of. My personal experience with Nikon lenses built for professional use has been that they seldom malfunction, and if the one you're getting hasn't been abused it should serve you well. Also, not all repairs require replacement parts. Buying anything sight unseen is a gamble - you took a chance that I also would take. Further, I believe someone here once mentioned that KEH has a liberal return policy. Good luck with your purchase!
juicesqueezer wrote:
I don't think anyone said that the 300 f4 was not sharp, but the OP was looking at putting a 1.7 TC on it and that would lose 2 stops of light.
:?: The OP made no mention of light loss being a problem.
mdorn wrote:
Anyone have this lens, and if so, are you happy with it? Was planning to use it for some starscapes in a few weeks. Photo examples would be great. Thanks.
Do you have the lens already? If so, you could post a few photos here, and get some good opinions. I don't think top image quality would be overly important for starscapes, though I've never tried it. Some Rokinon lenses are well spoken of.
WayneW wrote:
I just started using raw files (after years of jpegs). My Nikon D200 bodies are rated at 10.2 megapixels but I end up with files that are over 15. What's up?
Your expectations are too low. Set your sights higher. :)
alandg46 wrote:
I wouldn't slam you for that. I should have stated, I don't want 2.8's.
The deal is I can get the 300 mm f-4 ED IF for $400 used and that got my attention.
If I didn't already have a 250 and 400, I would definitely go for the 300 F/4.0 ED IF myself. I've used one on my Df, and found the image quality to be outstanding. I don't think you'll be disappointed, as long as it is in good condition.
alandg46 wrote:
Ok, thanks. I'm not interested in 2.8's any more. I hike too much and I don't want the weight and I'm 69 years old now. Not even shorter 2.8 zooms.
I have a 16-35 mm f-4, a 24-120 mm f-4, and a 70-200 mm f-4 for Nikon. I do have some short 2.8 zooms for Pentax, but I'm going to sell them.
Probably best for me to stop at 300 mm on the Nikon. Trying to match or come close to the reach of a K-3 Pentax is probably not cost effective or weight effective.
Actually, that lens with a 1.4X teleconverter will perform very well on a D800E, and you won't lose that much by cropping to match the coverage of a 1.7X. (And thanks for not slamming my above comment!) The f/4.0's lighter weight makes a lot of sense for hiking. :)
alandg46 wrote:
Ok Nikon guys, how would this lens be on a D800E? and with a 1.7 teleconverter?
It would be like a 300/4.0 Nikkor ED IF on or off a camera, with or without a teleconverter.
wolfiebear wrote:
I still like manual focus a lot too. . .
. . . but I am missing the little focussing "crosshairs" we used to have.
Is it safe to assume this is something that can't be had with digital cameras?
Is there anything else that functions about the same ? (I use the viewfinder only)
Thanks,
Inga
"Focusing crosshairs" are intended for aerial focusing at high magnifications, such as through a telescope or microscope, and are not very useful for anything else.
While split-image and microprism focusing aids can be useful, you should find that when an image is sharp on a plain screen, it will also be sharp on the sensor. Adjust your viewfinder diopter correctly.
Also, when the electronic focus indicator lights up, focus should be spot-on.
Personally, the only markings I want on my screens are a grid for alignment and a centre circle to indicate my meter and focus point.
Modern focusing screens are designed for a purpose - there is nothing wrong with learning how to use them.
Edit: By the way, I very seldom use autofocus.