The f stop I choose is dependent on the depth of field I need, period. If I need to use f32 for a macro shot of a three dimensional object, so be it. Similarly, if I need f8, f11 or f16 for a normal shot without having important elements out of focus, so be it. If my pictures don't reflect the theoretical sharpness of the lens because of diffraction, I can't help it. I've got to make the shot that I need.

I have one of those too, also bought in the early 70s. At the time, you couldn't get anything of comparable quality for the price, and they were pretty cheap, though not cheaply made. I think a couple of guys in New Jersey machined and manufactured them by hand in their garage when they started out. I don't remember when, but Leitz bought the rights to these and manufactured them to the original factory specs for a long time. They're now made in Taiwan. I have one of those as well. B&H is often out of stock, but you can buy them cheaper from Freestyle, and they always seem to be in stock. On the newer model, one of the legs can detach and function as a monopod.

I have never had an issue with these tripods. I even routinely used my first one back in the day with a 4x5 Crown Graphic to take many time exposures at night without a hint of movement. The original seems to be made with better precision than the latest version. (Hand made versus mass produced.) The moving parts in the legs and the head of the original just seem a bit more refined. I would still consider it a bargain at not much more than $100 from Freestyle, but it isn't a modern design and requires patience when you adjust the head. Also the factory head is totally unsuitable for video if your video requires panning.

I'm sure you've heard the expression, "If we could send people to the moon, we should be able to do X, Y or Z" I believe that a camera, regardless of the lens mounted on it, should be able to tell whether a picture (or the subject of a picture) is in focus when the picture is taken. If the current sensor arrangement allows for errors, then it needs to be redesigned. Do you remember the Nikon FA film camera from the 1980s? The lenses used in those days included older lenses that were modified with an AI aperture ring and AI lenses whose diaphragms were not calibrated with the precision of the AIs lenses that were current when that camera was new. To compensate for the inaccuracy of the diaphragms of the older lenses, the camera took a second meter reading after the aperture closed, and the shutter speed was adjusted to compensate for any aperture errors, resulting in correctly exposed pictures. Our newer cameras need to be able to see whether the image on the sensor is in focus and adjust the focus when it isn't. If that requires a bit of technology that doesn't exist at the present moment, then someone needs to work on it. I still think it's ridiculous to spend hundreds and thousand on lenses and have to adjust each one to compensate for errors in the way they focus.

I bought a 70-200 f4 VR last year, and it has been my only lens so far with a focusing issue (On my D810). I went out in my back yard to try out the lens, taking pictures mainly of birds in trees, and every photo was out of focus. The lens was near focusing, and you could see it even without magnifying the images. I got a sickening feeling and had to make a decision, take it back or adjust the focus. I decided on the latter. It needed +6 at 200mm. I didn't do any formal testing at other focal lengths, but I've not noticed a problem so far. I think that this situation with lenses is ridiculous.

Did you read this post by fotomacher.

"I would love to get a new camera. My photos are such crap now and a new camera will probably take much better pics. By the way, why does my flash keep popping up in daylight. What a stupid camera I have now!"

It was meant as a joke, and I was one of two people who took it literally, and we were accused of not understanding satire. Does it make sense now? That's the best I can do at humor.

Geniuses tend to take what's said literally. Looks like we have two on this forum :-)

I agree with you. Science is science. If someone can't tell the difference in their pictures, then they can't tell the difference, but the difference is there for anyone to see if they look closely. Measurements like MTF curves do translate into the end result. I would also say that if you put an inferior lens on a high resolution camera, you've wasted a lot of money on the camera. I think that follows from what I've read of your posts. But as I've pointed out, people who buy high end cameras who don't need them keep the sales volume up and the prices down for everyone else.

You have some awesome lenses, and it doesn't make any sense to me that your pictures would be crap on a D810. I have one of those cameras, and it too is awesome. You might consider having Nikon check it out for defects. Your flash shouldn't pop up randomly like that. I've taken pictures with my camera in ridiculously low light, and the flash doesn't pop up unless I make it pop up and certainly not randomly in the daytime.

Can't tell much with one picture. I could post crops of my best pictures taken with an older 28-105 AF-D, and you'd think they were taken with a good prime lens. On the other hand, results with this lens are inconsistent depending on lighting, f-stop and focal length and flare potential, and some of the pictures I've taken just make me wonder why I'm still going around with this lens attached to the camera. One thing for sure is that I'm not going to replace it with the 28-300. I've seen too many negative test reports on it. I'm thinking of getting a refurbished 24-120 f4 VRII. They sell these things by the bucket loads with the D750 and D810, and there is probably a reason for it. (I have a D810). Those cameras will not forgive an inferior lens.

The charts do matter. They are actual measurements of parameters that matter, not only of resolution but also things like distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration. Camera that claim to compensate for these defects may not do a perfect job. If you don't see a difference on a computer screen between pictures taken with different lenses, then that's great. When you want to make a critical enlargement, a very large enlargement, or crop heavily and get closer to the pixels, you'll see the difference.

This is an FX lens, and you're using it with a DX sensor that doesn't see the entire picture you'd see with an FX camera. Lenses tend to be least sharp in the corners. Vignetting is a problem in the corners. Distortion tends to increase away from the center of the picture. You aren't seeing the corners and edges that you'd see if you used this on a D750 or D810. One person's great lens may not be so great on a camera with a larger sensor.

I understand completely. I don't disagree with you on the technical details. By the way, I think that most lenses, and all I own except one, don't challenge the 36 megapixel sensor at any f stop. The exception in my lens arsenal is an ancient manual focus 55mm f3.5 micro when used up close (bought new by my father, by the way) . It doesn't have a floating element, so it is mediocre at distance. As for buying the next iteration of this camera, I'm going to pass, at least until someone convinces me I can't live without some new feature, and it would have to be some dynamite feature, not more pixels.

You and I had a discussion about this on another topic. You use a D810 for studio work and feel that the camera has no place outside of the studio. You feel that people are being duped into buying cameras like this that they don't really need. I would agree that most people don't need a camera like this (super high resolution) for general photography. On the other hand, if the manufacturer can't sell a camera at high volume, the only way they could recover their development and tooling costs would be to charge much more money for the camera. People who need a high resolution camera for their work should be grateful that others who don't need them buy them for whatever reason.

Almost two years ago, I had a choice between buying the D810 and the D750, the newer kid on the block, smaller, lighter and quite a good camera. I could afford the D810 and basically said, "What the hell" in the store. And what difference does it make? I really like the camera, and I carry it around like any other camera. Everyone wins.

I get the feeling that you "left the building." I'll throw in my two cents anyway. Don't bother with primes until you master photography with the lenses you have. Primes tend to be sharper with less distortion than zooms, but you have to compose your pictures by moving the camera back and forth toward or away from your subject, and when you want to take a different type of picture, landscape versus portrait for example, you will probably have to change lenses. Zoom lenses have gotten quite good. Unless you're looking at pictures at the pixel level or making very large enlargements, you may not even see any difference. If you get to the point where that small amount of extra picture quality matters to you, you may find yourself buying more than one prime lens in different focal lengths. The only prime lens you may actually need if you want to do very close up work is a macro lens.

I agree with this. A fast prime is useful for purposely isolating a subject with shallow depth of field. This can be pretty tricky. If your focus is off by even a small amount, it can ruin a picture. For general picture, modern cameras can function at ridiculously high ISO without much degradation of the image, and a zoom lens now becomes useful in dim light. Fast lenses can let in more light, but the shallow depth of field may not be what you're looking for in a picture.