To do that, click the box that says "store original."

And...Welcome!

There have been a number of recent posts asking about batteries discharging when equipment is not being used. There are several reasons that self-discharge routinely occurs, related to the chemistry in the batteries and the fact that the insulation between the poles of the battery is not perfect. In addition, those batteries with imbedded chips must power those chips 100% of the time. It is possible to find numbers that differ a little bit, but this chart is from a site called BatteryUniversity. Of course the nice formatting doesn't copy, but I've tried to make it readable.

Self-discharge as a function of time.

Battery system / Estimated self-discharge

Alkaline / 2–3% per year (7-10 years shelf life)
Lead-acid / 5% per month
Nickel-based / 10–15% in 24h, then 10-15% per month (NiCad and Nickel Metal Hydride)
Lithium-ion / 5% in 24h, then 1–2% per month (plus 3% for safety circuit) (So 4-5% per month if not in the camera.)

Actual discharge that we will see in our camera bodies will be higher, because if you look carefully, they probably never power down completely. Parts of the LCD are typically continuously powered, along with the clock and calendar, and other functions may remain active during powered down periods.

Edit: Lithium Ion Batteries that have been deep-discharged even once will have a slightly higher self-discharge rate. Those that have been stored in a discharged condition for 14 days will typically have a self-discharge rate that is 3.5 times higher than an undamaged cell. So don't over discharge these batteries, and recharge them before putting them away.

And of course, as others have noted, "Your Mileage May Vary."

Yep...gives the receptor cells two chances to see the same light. Wonder if digital sensors could adopt the same idea for better low-light performance? Or maybe they already have.And I believed that you adopted the right kitten. Annie was a stray who came to my wife's parents' home about 7 years ago, but they already had their limit of cats.

Please note that the D810 has what Nikon calls the "Aperture Coupled Ring" and is fully compatible with AI and AIS lenses. The ACR is a small tab that interfaces with a projection on the AI lenses and rotates around the lens mount to automatically adjust the metering system to read correctly. I am not certain what other current models have this ring to allow use of these lenses...

The biggest challenge for me is to catch them looking in another direction to avoid the bright reflection from their retinas...

Larry

The filter ring on that lens (135 f/2) is 77mm.

Larry

That sounds reasonable. I was digging around and found the old Soligor 135mm f/2 that I bought way back when I was shooting Nikon OMs. It also has the 'almost square' dimensions when viewed from the side, but is a little smaller than what you describe. A 200 f/2 would probably scale up just about right.

I never ended up using that lens very much, though. Although it was nicely constructed in Japan, it was too front-heavy on the small Olympus bodies. The elements were either not coated or very minimally coated, so color performance was limited.

Oops...I see that your message beat mine while I was researching a little bit.

Well...your quest continues...

Tigger1--

I see what you are describing. Hadn't noticed it before...thought the part in her eye was a reflection. Interesting observation. It does seem to be something fibrous, but finer than her coat. I don't see it in her eye today, but will be on the lookout.

Thanks for looking so closely.

Yes. This is a JPEG image. Cropped in-camera only. It was a spur of the moment opportunity that arose unexpectedly. Closer examination reveals that the focus point may be a little more on the nose than the eye. I'll be doing a little more watching and controlled experimenting if necessary to make certain that the lens is not front focusing a little bit.

I have been a champion of progress throughout my 45 year career in education and industry. I was one of the first 3 people at Texas Instruments to "officially" have a company-sanctioned microcomputer in 1978 or 1979. It was a remarkable machine that revolutionized the way I did my daily work. No later machine or upgrade made the impact that one did. I was also one if the first 5 people to receive a brand new PC (TI called them Professional Computers) in 1981.

As an amateur radio operator, I was among a group of folks that were experimenting with practical, everyday uses of GPS and sending two-way data wirelessly and at a reasonable cost years before those functions and systems were licensed and adapted for commercial use.

Where I find that we get hung up here (and so do a lot of other folks, especially in the two current generations) is that they claim that the new developments resulting from progress completely invalidate the previous ways of doing things and demand that those old procedures be abandoned. Thing is, while that is sometimes true, many times it is not.

As an example, amateur radio operators all over the country partner with the National Weather Service to observe and report severe weather. The backbone of that operation is two way voice communication using frequency modulation on VHF frequencies. That has been a proven means of communication, immune to essentially all but the most storm-induced interference, for at least the last 50 years. Some operators augment that backbone by using an Automatic Position Reporting System (APRS), a newer technology that transmits GPS data in real time so that others can know exactly where they are located. Some even transmit basic weather observations via this system (temperature, dew point,wind speed/direction, and barometric pressure). This capability is extremely helpful, but it does not replace the eyeball to voice observations that are the reason we are out in the field during storms. I know about this. I do this.

So the thing is...my ability and desire to do extensive post processing on my images does not invalidate my colleague's desire to concentrate on the composition and exposure and produce results direct from the camera. My ability to do post processing does not invalidate a choice I might make from time to time do do the same thing...go straight from the camera.

So I think we have opportunity here to just get along and recognize that others may choose to follow a different process from ourself.

Read a little about him. My impression was that his idea is that instead of spending the $2000 on equipment, you should spend it with him. Now that may be unkind and unfair, but it's the impression I get.

All good camera bodies. Depending on your budget, you might want to at least look at a D810. The controls and menus will much more closely mirror those on your D500.

A little hard to say for sure, but I wonder if what you are describing could be some sort of "mirror" lens (Schmidt-Cassegrain lens)...a 500mm f/5.6 would be about the size of what you are describing. This is like the construction of the Celestron compact telescopes...no iris to adjust f stop.

Thanks for the comments. I do take photos of subjects other than cats. But they generally will pose attractively and (mostly) sit still. And they do not demand payment or a to sign a release for publication.

Now that I have expanded to full frame photography, I am reevaluating some of my older lenses that have not seen a lot of recent use, especially for sharpness. This test photo represents the center 20% or so of the full 36 mp image..it's a little over 7 mp. Exposed at ISO 400, f4, on-camera flash. Subject distance was about 12 feet. No PP other than cropping. Focus point was on Annie's left eye. And I know this is not a perfect photo...I'd like for the lighting to have provided a little more separation of her facial whiskers from her white coat, for example. The point is that so far, I am very pleased with the performance of my older 180 mm and 50 mm D lenses on this new body. Still have to look at the 35mm and the 300 mm f4. I think this family of lenses maybe gets a little bit forgotten. And yes...focus is slower and requires an in-camera motor, but the benefit is smaller and lighter overall design, leading to easier and quicker handling.

(Download)