I use the 50mm f1.4D. It is an optical design that dates to the manual focus AI and AIS lenses of the late 70s and 80s. It is pro quality glass that gives pro quality results. The current model certainly isn't built to the same standards as the earlier, all metal manual focus lenses, but what is from Nikon these days? Comparing this lens with the G lenses is just splitting hairs, and it's lighter and less expensive. You just have to make sure that your camera body has a built in motor for autofocus. (All of the full frame bodies and the higher end DX bodies.)

Just to finish a thought, even though it has nothing to do with the original post in this topic. When I bought my D810 two years ago, I made a conscious effort to buy older AF-D lenses for several reasons. They're smaller and lighter than the newer lenses. They're cheaper. They can be used on older film cameras like that Nikon FA that I gave my son in law, and I figured we'd share the lenses. I can't complain about the 50mm f1.4 that I bought, but all of the other AF-D lenses will eventually be replaced. (24,35, 28-105). My son in law will be happy to get them, and I'll be happy to get rid of them. I agree that you don't buy a top of the line camera and skimp on lenses. If you don't care so much, you should have bought a cheaper camera to begin with.

I had to do that with the 70-200, set now at +5, adjusted at 150mm, which may not be right on at the other focal lengths, but I haven't noticed any serious issues. The other lenses are right on or close enough. All lenses aren't created equal. What I'm trying to say is that high resolution sensors now can reveal these differences more easily than before, which leads me to believe that the lenses are becoming the weakest link. I'm not saying they're weak. There are some superb lenses out there. I think that my 50 and 70-200 are superb lenses, but thinking that this megapixel race we seem to be in is going to make pictures better may be wrong. This is based on my experience with MY camera (D810) that I actually use and not random reviews on the internet. My camera seems to be out-resolving my lenses, certainly some of them, maybe all of them.

I have the D810 and a few lenses. I can clearly see that some of them are inferior to others. My older 50mm f1.4 AF-D is probably the sharpest lens that I own so long as I don't use it wide open or even at f2. It's tack sharp by f5.6, but I still feel that I'm looking at lens resolution and not sensor resolution when I zoom in and look closely at the pictures. My 70-200 F4 VR is about as sharp. I can see that my 35mm f2 AF-D is sharp but not as sharp as those lenses. I am very disappointed in the sharpness of my 24mm f2.8 AF-D. Maybe I got a bad sample. My 28-105 AF-D is sharp in the center and over most of the frame, but the softness at the edges is a bit annoying. I can work around it by cropping the edges out of the picture. (I'm going to replace it with something else. I just haven't decided with what yet.) By the way, I have a 55mm f2.8 AF micro that is said (by Ken Rockwell) to be Nikon's sharpest lens. I know.... Ken Rockwell. Don't say anything. Anyway, it's a fine lens, but it's not sharper than my 50mm at distance. I bought it to be a general purpose lens, but if I don't need the macro range, the 50mm is going to be on my camera.

How many people have actually bought the Canon 50 megapixel cameras? I assume you're talking about the Canon 5 DS and DSR cameras with the 50 megapixel sensors. They costs significantly more than the Nikon D810, especially with the sales going on now, and the Nikon is said in almost every review I've read to have better overall image quality. Personally, I think that most lenses used on these cameras can't resolve as much detail as the sensors can capture, so whether you're looking at 36 megapixels or 100 megapixels, you're still basically looking at lens performance and will see little difference. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've seen that video. Buddy Rich played far better than Krupa, but Krupa was an old man at that point in time. It was a "passing of the torch" moment. To me it's like watching Sinatra sing past his prime, or Vladimir Horowitz playing in his 80s. You don't care if they didn't have the magic any longer, and you feel lucky that you were able to see them before their passing. By the way, I went to hear Tony Bennett sing around 20 years ago thinking he was getting close to the end of his career. Boy was I wrong about that.

I went through a period of only shooting slides, mostly Kodachrome, and my purpose was NOT to print them. My slide shows were NOT boring. Projected slides were fantastic and far more interesting than prints. When people asked me for prints, my only easy option was to take them to the local camera store and have them sent to Kodak. The prints that came back on reversal paper from Kodak were vastly inferior to prints made from color negatives, and they started to fade almost as soon as they were taken home. Yes, I know about internegatives and dye transfer prints. Then Cibachrome came along, and I still have some Cibachrome prints made many years ago that haven't faded, but the projected slides looked better.

Yes, it took much more care to make good slides than shooting sloppy digital images and editing them later.

Millions upon millions of people press the shutter button on a camera or phone and do nothing with the images afterward except look at them and share them. Not everyone is interested in photography as a hobby or profession. Some (like myself) own expensive cameras that take great pictures that could be better with post processing but have little time for it. Is anyone really being bullied by this? Where does that come from?

Absolutely. He was a superstar. Benny Goodman dumped him when he figured that people were going to his concerts to hear Krupa drumming, and he didn't want to share the glory with anyone. Krupa was the first to use the drums as a solo instrument, both in concert and in recordings. Was he the "best?" Probably not. Buddy Rich was probably the best, at least in the minds of many, but without Krupa, there would have been no Buddy Rich as we remember him. You have to give him all of the credit in the world for innovation and inspiration. Buddy Rich did.

I know this is about cameras, but there's nothing wrong with having a little fun on the side. But I'll tell you what really converted me to digital was buying a Nikon D810 a couple of years ago. I'm in awe of what the camera can do. The 35mm film we used back in the day never captured as much detail as this camera. I mean I'm thinking of replacing most of my inferior lenses, because their flaws are perfectly obvious with this camera.

I totally agree. By the way, I heard Buddy Rich live at Carnegie Hall when I was in school in the 70s. My son has an autographed and numbered pair of his drum sticks in a display on his wall. But the most influential, though not the best, drummer of all time was Gene Krupa. He invented the modern drum kit that everyone uses and set a standard for jazz and big band drummers. He had quite a career too. My Sirius radio is on the 40's station 95 % of the time. I still prefer digital to film, but with music, it's a different story.

My current walkabout lens is the older 28-105 f3.5-4.5 AF-D zoom. I use it on my D810 with no complaints other than the lack of VR. It is very sharp over 90% of the frame, with some softening at the far edges on my FX sensor. It has virtually no distortion at any focal length. I bought the lens for $200 used on Amazon. I would like to hear the opinions of people who have used this older lens and then upgraded to one of the newer Nikon mid-range zooms (24-120 f4, 24-85 f3.5-4.5, and 24-70 f2.8). I'd like to upgrade to a lens that has VR without giving up sharpness. The D810 is unforgiving in exposing a soft lens. I have found myself on occasion in some very dark museum struggling with finding a way to stabilize the camera to avoid motion and blurring of my pictures. I don't generally walk around with a big tripod. Increasing the ISO to keep the shutter speed up is a partial solution but at 6400 or higher, the noise does degrade the pictures to an unacceptable level. I think that the VR version of the 24-70 lens is just too big and heavy to carry around all day long on an already big and heavy camera, and some of the reviews I've read complain about excessive chromatic aberration and exposure inaccuracies with the electronically controlled diaphragm. Are there any opinions from people who have used the older lens and then upgraded to something newer?

Film will stay around for as long as it is still manufactured, and that will depend on demand. The demand these days is a tiny fraction of the demand when film cameras were all we had. Many emulsions (Kodachrome being a prime example) have been discontinued. You can no longer find film in most supermarkets outside of some disposable cameras that a few people still buy. You have to order it or buy it in a camera store, if you're lucky enough to find one. Digital has put many camera stores and film processing labs out of business with only a few still standing.

My wife loves old movies. Even though TCM has done a good job of keeping up some interest in these movies, many that were released on DVD in the past are already out of print. I tell her that she has to buy what she can buy now.

I have a 34 year old son who appreciates the music from the 30s, 40s and 50s, thanks to my interest in this music that I listened to growing up. He works as a teacher in a high school. He has never found one student who knows who Buddy Rich was, (his idol), much less Benny Goodman, Glenn Miller, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Lionel Hampton, Dizzy Gillespie, Frank Sinatra etc. The music of these giants isn't played on the radio any longer except on satellite radio, and Sirius tried to get rid of it just a few years ago. They kept it because of the protests of older listeners, but what happens when they're gone?

The lack of new hardware for film is also a deterrent to its survival. There is still plenty of used equipment out there, but it is aging or even rotting in closets all over the place. But again, the real issue is how long film itself will be manufactured. I don't know, but I suspect not forever. That's the real problem.

I'm guilty of dumping film myself. I have a Nikon FTn and some old lenses that have been sitting in a closet for years. Sad, I suppose, but it's just too hard to deal with using film, and honestly, the Nikon D810 I bought a couple of years ago produces pictures that outshine any film pictures I've ever taken.

I don't think that one has to do with the other. The younger generation has probably never seen film except for their baby pictures. The fact of the matter is that phones are the camera of choice of the younger generation and even some not so young. The quality of the pictures has improved drastically. This has put not only film but dedicated cameras in jeopardy of becoming things of the past. There is no question that dedicated cameras, especially those with interchangeable lenses, take better pictures than phones, but if people don't buy cameras, their future is shaky. We could end up with phones and high end cameras for enthusiasts with nothing in between. Camera makers are in the business of selling cameras for a profit, and they will stop making cameras when the profit isn't there any longer.

There does seem to be a surge in interest in film, but compared with the past, the offerings in new cameras and film choices are very limited. Time will tell if this surge will maintain the interest of those making film. New film cameras do exist, but the offerings dwindle over time. I think the writing is on the wall, and those who love film are going to face a bleak future in the long run.

Nikon keeps secrets well. Who knows what they're up to? I have used a D810 for almost two years. I can clearly see differences in lens sharpness between all of my lenses if I look for it. I suspect that the sensor is not the limiting factor in picture sharpness. I doubt if more megapixels would make much of a difference in image quality unless lens technology gets better. The only things that would make me consider upgrading at this point would be significantly better autofocus and overall speed of taking pictures. It would also be nice to have stored presets that could be accessed quickly.

I always travel with a laptop. At the end of each day, I transfer the pictures of the day to the hard drive of the laptop. At the end of the vacation, I transfer all of the pictures to TWO external hard drives in case one of them fails in the future. I also take the SD card out of the camera and put it away in storage. I have three copies of every picture I take. I think that's insurance enough. I've also considered copying my pictures to cloud storage, but so far it seems like extra bother to me.