Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Started Feb 4, 2014 | Discussions
Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,376
Re: valid points
1

Devendra wrote:

Valid point about shutter vs mirror, but I don't think mirror flipping could be a battery issue. Both D7100 and D800 use the same battery.

The mirrors are not the same size though, the D800 mirror is over twice as large. Again, to get the D800 mirror to go from 5 fps to 6 fps requires going from 7 volts to 10.8 volts (those are the rated voltage of the EN-EL15 versus the EN-EL18 or 8 AA batteries).

So 6-7fps is already possible. adding 2 more may be a matter of firmware.

Adding two more to seven is adding is 28% more.

seahawk
seahawk Senior Member • Posts: 2,794
D800 stlye metering

that would be as high on my wishlist as the 7FPS and bigger buffer.

-- hide signature --

hobby aviation photographer

jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,423
Re: D800 stlye metering

seahawk wrote:

that would be as high on my wishlist as the 7FPS and bigger buffer.

Yeah, I have a theory that the higher pixel density of the exposure meter can more accurately detect smaller highlights and shadows and can likely more accurately create an exposure to preserve both or balance between them as desired rather than just seeing an average of larger blocks of the image.  I think that could be really useful - particularly in detecting and preserving smaller highlights in bright sun, but also in just creating a better balance between highlights and shadows in a scene with full DR.

-- hide signature --
ebsilon Contributing Member • Posts: 628
Re: Perhaps there's another solution...
3

JimPearce wrote:

Thom alludes to an "ingenious solution" that he has seen. I don't think an adapter would be described as "ingenious". Anyway - I repeat - I will not be shooting my lenses through an adapter. TCs are a different issue as the loss lensrentals is talking about is not in center sharpness.

-- hide signature --

Jim

But if all lens communication can be be transmitted through the lens contacts, what's the problem with an adapter solution for longer registrastrion distance lenses on a mirrroless if made high quality? Optically, it is  only empty space between the lens rear element and the sensor

-- hide signature --

------- Eirik ----------
Visit my gallery at http://eirikbs.smugmug.com/

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,624
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

yray wrote:

Bajerunner wrote:

yray wrote:

Well, you may also ask yourself why Nikon flagship is fine with 16MP. What 16MP looks like relative to 12MP I know very well (have a D7000 lying around), and as hard as I look I don't see much of a practical difference. I know that a good sharp 12MP picture could be painlessly enlarged to a bigger print size than the vast majority ever cares to print. My benchmark size is 12x18, I don't print larger except in very rare cases, so what use are those additional pixels? If you say that gazillion MP is nice to have to crop or for that rare case when you do want to print wall size, I won't disagree with that. But nice to have comes at a price, longer upload times, longer store times, longer edit times, longer backup times, and more and more storage for all those backups. So, there is clearly a trade-off here between the nice to have pixels and all this overhead which (for me) is mostly pure aggravation. I might be the last holdout on this forum, but I generally don't suffer from "only" 12MP. In addition, for anything that doesn't fall into the domain of sports shooting in the dark, I'm mostly interested in how different cameras render colors and tones rather than pure resolution, and on this count I have seen no progress at all in years and years, and that being charitable....

If I may humbly interject and *suggest* something. I fulyl agree that I see some lovely work with the D700. Was looking at a beauty of a lake image, in low light, on flickr earlier.

That said, have another look at some K-3 or D7100 images, maybe it is JUST ME, but I am seeing strong colors and tonal depth unlike any other APS-C thus far. Great rendition from this sensor.

So, I think there has been change. And I 'believe' that this improvement in rendition is directly related to the number of pixels i.e. the greater number of pixels are enabling the capture of a greater range of tonal variations, thus impacting the image rendition.

I am sold on this sensor, not at first, took me a while.

But, as you mentioned to Tony, we may agree to disagree, but have a look.

It may just be me.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

There are many good D7100 images on flickr, it is a good camera. If you like it -- go for it.

If the update to that (D7100) camera has the same or better sensor, I surely will. Wont do with the current buffer and fps for my uses however.

In the absence of an update of sufficient utilities (aside from sensor), the K-3 is an excellent option, for me.

I am quite taken with what I see as the superior color depth and tonality that this sensor is able to generate, aside of course, from the additional detail, re cropping etc (which used to me my main concern). It makes for greater holistic rendition, to my eyes.

I cant see Nikon giving away market share to Pentax, Fuji etc, so I fully expect the update to D7100 at least have those fps and buffer, that some of us wish.

Cheers.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,624
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

JimPearce wrote:

Will there be a D700 successor? No.

Well, in my book D700 may remain its own successor for the foreseeable future. Unless you need lots of pixels and extreme DR for low ISO landscape shooting, D700 still does it all. Still the most versatile of cameras, that you have to pay multiples of the current used prices to get ever so slight improvement over.

It's a discussion for another forum really, but Thom actually called the D800 the D700 successor and told Nikon users to "get over it," so I see a bit of a contradiction from Thom about this in his latest article.

I

What I find interesting is that all of the discussion above on the 16MP vs 12MP, focuses purely on 'resolution / print sizing' to wit, basically image detail per se, but ignores holistic rendition, which the newer sensors, much greater pixel density, trump the lower MP sensors, in color depth and tonality.

When I started looking more closely at K-3 images ( and some not needing close viewing to see it) , it was very clear.

And I do believe the science supports this, in that the greater number of pixels are simply able to capture not only more detail, but more tonal variations (light).

But as you say, horses for courses.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,624
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
1

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

That comes down to per pixel sharpness though. If the pixels are sharp, it doesn't take very many of them; if the pixels aren't sharp then no matter how many you have it won't help.

Exactly!

I picked the D4 number. Why is 16 MP adequate to a lot of pros? One reason is that it's actually not easy to get more than 12 MP of resolution, you have to get very accurate focus, and you need to use very fast shutter speeds or use a tripod and MLU. In Thom Hogan's D3x review he went into this quite a bit showing how hard it was to meaningfully resolve more than he was getting from the D3.

Absolutely!

These are some of the very good reasons why D800 is too much of a good thing for me. I suspect it is also too much of a good thing for a whole lot of others, whether they admit it or not.

It really comes down to what you shoot and how you shoot it. I suspect that a lot of "big croppers" for instance fall into the category of shooters who don't habitually get very sharp pixels. So, they may not benefit from the extra pixels all that much after all.

Not really, the big advantage of strong cropping is really reach for wildlife or action, it actually saves money on lenses, with an 80-200 2.8 one can still do a lot if crop ability is there.  Just as much as buying a 300 2.8 on a lower MR camera, albeit the additional optical quality of the uber expensive 300 2.8 is another matter.

And, one can move lighter, if that 'reach  via crop' (when needed) is there.

It will not be used all the time, but the availability of the crop is very useful in some instances.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,624
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

mistermejia wrote:

Bajerunner wrote:

close?

I think there is even a new firmware coming out for the K3, which is supposed to improve the camera, including AF.

The bottom line is that the K3 is and will be a kick ass camera, in a already D300 type of body, IMO, and again, it really gets on my nerves that people here keep saying that they would be "satisfied" with a D300 replacement in a plastic D7200 type of body. I just wouldn't tolerate it if nikon just keeps giving their customer's ridiculous D5300 type of bodies and nothing else compared to what everyone else is making now days.

Anything less than the best would be a felony!

I am personally VERY curious what the D7200 is going to have, but based on the last four DX bodies that nikon has come up with, I am NOT excited at all, just curious.

-

The important thing is that people have to choose what is right FOR THEM, that is okay.

It does not get on my nerves at all, nothing to do with me, BUT, I agree with you that the D7100 type body is a compromise *as a replacement for the D300*.

Likely, if no D300 with current 24MP (or better) sensor, I will buy the update to the D7100 *IF* it has much better buffer and fps than the D7100, eventually.

But for me it will be a compromise, albeit with the necessary features I want for utility.

You are right that build quality is much more than  just 'magnesium body'.

It is about quality of parts in spec, quality of outsourced parts, quality in assembly, quality control on output.

That is a significantly more important argument to 'plastic vs magnesium'.

As an example, where are the 'D800 has oil spots' threads? No one questions the build quality of the D800, albeit the left AF issue, but that seems much more than build quality, it seems a bit more complex.

So, like you I would prefer the current sensor or better in a D300 body.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

seahawk
seahawk Senior Member • Posts: 2,794
Re: D800 stlye metering

Exactly my impression comparing the D800 and the D300S. The D800 is better at noticing small highlights. (I often see this with small sun reflections on aircraft. The D300S blows them, the D800 does not.

-- hide signature --

hobby aviation photographer

sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 10,128
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

ceaiu wrote:

Combine questions 1 and 7 and we get a mirrorless D300 type of camera.
D7200 may also be one of the last of its kind, if not THE last.
The lack of pro, or even prosumer, DX lenses in the last years could mean a different mount - only for the mirrorless DX though... a mirrorless FX should keep the F-mount.

It would make so much more sense to just make F mount DX lenses. A new APS-C/FX Nikon mount is just a stupid idea, period. The F-Mount is Nikon's greatest asset. Mirrorless F-mounts at the bottom of their lineup is the answer; with EVF as an accessory. Then the high end cameras can retain their OVFs for the forseeable future. I think Nikon would win back a LOT of NEX and MFT users with such a strategy- sure the cameras would be a little bigger because of the deeper lens mount; but then, you have access to that huge library of lenses as well as all of Nikon's volume priced accessories, along with their mega sensors. It's a no brainer.

They also need to plug the gaps in their glass. They desperately need a few fast wide DX lenses. 12 2.8, 17 2.0, 24 2.0. The FX primes are too big and expensive; they could pare down the DX ones.

Only thing I really disagree with is the cell phone thing.  Here's a simple question. Where do you think a product would get more exposure: a camera store or a cell phone store? Just having a brand presence in the cell phone market will be huge for the brand; especially if they make the phones appreciably superior in IQ to the competition, which wouldn't be hard.

Nikon's got a lot of work to do to stay relevant in the long term. They look good now but they are on the tail end of a changing market I think.

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
NEX-5T Sony Alpha a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical Canon EF 24-105mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM Rokinon AF 50mm F1.4 FE +3 more
yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 1,640
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Bajerunner wrote:

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

That comes down to per pixel sharpness though. If the pixels are sharp, it doesn't take very many of them; if the pixels aren't sharp then no matter how many you have it won't help.

Exactly!

I picked the D4 number. Why is 16 MP adequate to a lot of pros? One reason is that it's actually not easy to get more than 12 MP of resolution, you have to get very accurate focus, and you need to use very fast shutter speeds or use a tripod and MLU. In Thom Hogan's D3x review he went into this quite a bit showing how hard it was to meaningfully resolve more than he was getting from the D3.

Absolutely!

These are some of the very good reasons why D800 is too much of a good thing for me. I suspect it is also too much of a good thing for a whole lot of others, whether they admit it or not.

It really comes down to what you shoot and how you shoot it. I suspect that a lot of "big croppers" for instance fall into the category of shooters who don't habitually get very sharp pixels. So, they may not benefit from the extra pixels all that much after all.

Not really, the big advantage of strong cropping is really reach for wildlife or action, it actually saves money on lenses, with an 80-200 2.8 one can still do a lot if crop ability is there.

Yes, but if you have mushy pixels or blurred pixels, then cropping will expose more mush and blur. You have to have a sharp picture to be able to crop. I have seen plenty of Fuji S5 photos which look sharper than D7000 photos, and certainly much sharper than cropped D7000 photos. I have seen D700 photos which look way sharper than D800 photos. Just look at your own D300 shots, even taken with the same lens. Do they really all have the same resolution. I know the answer to that -- they don't, not even close, and it depends on the host of environmental factors and how those shots were taken. If you talk about cropping from a perfect shot taken with no vibrations or motion blur of any kind, with AF perfectly nailed, and assuming the lens resolves what a 36MP FX or 24MP DX camera is capable of -- then you're right. But in reality, perfect shots are not common unless you're shooting from a tripod, or in excellent light with very high shutter speeds. There is also any number of threads, user reviews, etc of D800 complaining of inability to take a sharp picture due to mirror slap and such, which forces higher shutter speeds, which forces higher ISO, which cuts into DR and resolution.

Just as much as buying a 300 2.8 on a lower MR camera, albeit the additional optical quality of the uber expensive 300 2.8 is another matter.

And, one can move lighter, if that 'reach via crop' (when needed) is there.

It will not be used all the time, but the availability of the crop is very useful in some instances.

Yes, in some instances.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

JimPearce
OP JimPearce Veteran Member • Posts: 9,165
That's DR at work, not metering...

I notice exactly the same thing with the D7100.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D500
yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 1,640
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Bajerunner wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

JimPearce wrote:

Will there be a D700 successor? No.

Well, in my book D700 may remain its own successor for the foreseeable future. Unless you need lots of pixels and extreme DR for low ISO landscape shooting, D700 still does it all. Still the most versatile of cameras, that you have to pay multiples of the current used prices to get ever so slight improvement over.

It's a discussion for another forum really, but Thom actually called the D800 the D700 successor and told Nikon users to "get over it," so I see a bit of a contradiction from Thom about this in his latest article.

I

What I find interesting is that all of the discussion above on the 16MP vs 12MP, focuses purely on 'resolution / print sizing' to wit, basically image detail per se, but ignores holistic rendition, which the newer sensors, much greater pixel density, trump the lower MP sensors, in color depth and tonality.

I strongly disagree. From what I have seen, D7100 renders colors somewhat better than any of D7000, D600, D800, D4 or Df, while D7000, D600, D800, D4 and Df are all very similar, and I like color rendering of any of D200, D300, or D700 better. You could say that you can do anything in PP, but some cameras are just better for color right off the bat. We're also talking matters of taste here, so we may not see it the same way.

When I started looking more closely at K-3 images ( and some not needing close viewing to see it) , it was very clear.

I have not looked at Pentax. The issue of F-mount is too overwhelming for me to look beyond Nikon.

And I do believe the science supports this, in that the greater number of pixels are simply able to capture not only more detail, but more tonal variations (light).

But as you say, horses for courses.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

ragspix Senior Member • Posts: 1,021
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

yray wrote:

Bajerunner wrote:

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

That comes down to per pixel sharpness though. If the pixels are sharp, it doesn't take very many of them; if the pixels aren't sharp then no matter how many you have it won't help.

Exactly!

I picked the D4 number. Why is 16 MP adequate to a lot of pros? One reason is that it's actually not easy to get more than 12 MP of resolution, you have to get very accurate focus, and you need to use very fast shutter speeds or use a tripod and MLU. In Thom Hogan's D3x review he went into this quite a bit showing how hard it was to meaningfully resolve more than he was getting from the D3.

Absolutely!

These are some of the very good reasons why D800 is too much of a good thing for me. I suspect it is also too much of a good thing for a whole lot of others, whether they admit it or not.

It really comes down to what you shoot and how you shoot it. I suspect that a lot of "big croppers" for instance fall into the category of shooters who don't habitually get very sharp pixels. So, they may not benefit from the extra pixels all that much after all.

Not really, the big advantage of strong cropping is really reach for wildlife or action, it actually saves money on lenses, with an 80-200 2.8 one can still do a lot if crop ability is there.

Yes, but if you have mushy pixels or blurred pixels, then cropping will expose more mush and blur. You have to have a sharp picture to be able to crop. I have seen plenty of Fuji S5 photos which look sharper than D7000 photos, and certainly much sharper than cropped D7000 photos. I have seen D700 photos which look way sharper than D800 photos. Just look at your own D300 shots, even taken with the same lens. Do they really all have the same resolution. I know the answer to that -- they don't, not even close, and it depends on the host of environmental factors and how those shots were taken. If you talk about cropping from a perfect shot taken with no vibrations or motion blur of any kind, with AF perfectly nailed, and assuming the lens resolves what a 36MP FX or 24MP DX camera is capable of -- then you're right. But in reality, perfect shots are not common unless you're shooting from a tripod, or in excellent light with very high shutter speeds. There is also any number of threads, user reviews, etc of D800 complaining of inability to take a sharp picture due to mirror slap and such, which forces higher shutter speeds, which forces higher ISO, which cuts into DR and resolution.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

That's why spontaneous shooters have difficulty with 36mp

But it doesn't matter, since the casual viewer (purchaser) doesn't see the detail.

While the eye has better DR than a cam, it doesn't have the ability for the discernable resolution the sensor provides. unless studied and in many cases more so, if one wears glasses

Add to that - the distance viewed and pixel peeping becomes less important

Rags

yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 1,640
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Tony Beach wrote:

In Thom Hogan's D3x review he went into this quite a bit showing how hard it was to meaningfully resolve more than he was getting from the D3.

I took time to reread the portion of the review about resolution (I think many people would benefit from it). If anything, it confirms my experience and impressions that there is less to high resolution than the camera makers want us to believe, while noise and aliasing artifacts can readily masquerade as "amazing" detail.

Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,376
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

yray wrote:

Bajerunner wrote:

Not really, the big advantage of strong cropping is really reach for wildlife or action, it actually saves money on lenses, with an 80-200 2.8 one can still do a lot if crop ability is there.

...in reality, perfect shots are not common unless you're shooting from a tripod, or in excellent light with very high shutter speeds. There is also any number of threads, user reviews, etc of D800 complaining of inability to take a sharp picture due to mirror slap and such, which forces higher shutter speeds, which forces higher ISO, which cuts into DR and resolution.

My D300 has significantly less mirror slap than my A850, to the point that I often get better resolution from the D300 at equivalent focal lengths (i.e., 200mm on the D300 will resolve more than 280mm on the A850).  Obviously the larger mirror on the A850 plays a role here.  This is one of the reasons I will go to my D300 instead of my A850 (the other reason is the D300's better AF) for telephoto work.

I've wondered about the D800's mirror slap; I bet the D3x has less due to its larger body.  Not only can we expect better performance from a DX camera using the same or greater pixel density than from an FX camera in this regard, but we also get better performance from heavier bodies (smoothness of the mirror dampening also plays a role and I've heard good things about the D7000 in this regard).  Many balk when the idea of putting a DX sensor into a D4 body comes up, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the best possible approach to this issue.

yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 1,640
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

Bajerunner wrote:

Not really, the big advantage of strong cropping is really reach for wildlife or action, it actually saves money on lenses, with an 80-200 2.8 one can still do a lot if crop ability is there.

...in reality, perfect shots are not common unless you're shooting from a tripod, or in excellent light with very high shutter speeds. There is also any number of threads, user reviews, etc of D800 complaining of inability to take a sharp picture due to mirror slap and such, which forces higher shutter speeds, which forces higher ISO, which cuts into DR and resolution.

My D300 has significantly less mirror slap than my A850, to the point that I often get better resolution from the D300 at equivalent focal lengths (i.e., 200mm on the D300 will resolve more than 280mm on the A850). Obviously the larger mirror on the A850 plays a role here. This is one of the reasons I will go to my D300 instead of my A850 (the other reason is the D300's better AF) for telephoto work.

I've wondered about the D800's mirror slap; I bet the D3x has less due to its larger body. Not only can we expect better performance from a DX camera using the same or greater pixel density than from an FX camera in this regard, but we also get better performance from heavier bodies (smoothness of the mirror dampening also plays a role and I've heard good things about the D7000 in this regard).

As regards D7000, this is something that is hard to prove, but I was occasionally getting some blur at shutter speeds relative to FL where I wouldn't expect it. So, I'm leaning toward using handheld shutter speeds of closer to 3x over FL. I had trouble attributing it all to my trembling hands, particularly since I'm doing much better with both D300 and D700, so it had to be something about the camera itself. I'm using the "Quiet" mode on D7000 now, and, again without any hard proof, my impression is that it does better this way. The D7000 is actually one camera which negatively impacted my attitude to the D800, because some of the complaints I heard about D800 seemed to be reminiscent of some of the D7000 issues, or, at any rate, of my interpretation of those issues.

Many balk when the idea of putting a DX sensor into a D4 body comes up, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the best possible approach to this issue.

Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,376
You might be interested in this chart

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

In Thom Hogan's D3x review he went into this quite a bit showing how hard it was to meaningfully resolve more than he was getting from the D3.

I took time to reread the portion of the review about resolution (I think many people would benefit from it). If anything, it confirms my experience and impressions that there is less to high resolution than the camera makers want us to believe, while noise and aliasing artifacts can readily masquerade as "amazing" detail.

This chart was taken from here.

When I break this down (I could be wrong and welcome correction) what I come up with is a theoretical maximum of slightly more than 36 MP for a 50mm lens at f/8. Longer focal lengths and wider apertures can resolve more; shorter focal lengths and narrow apertures will resolve less.  Of course, this is theory, in the real world optics and other factors come into play, and additional sampling can have benefits other than mere resolution.

Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,376
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...

yray wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

yray wrote:

Bajerunner wrote:

Not really, the big advantage of strong cropping is really reach for wildlife or action, it actually saves money on lenses, with an 80-200 2.8 one can still do a lot if crop ability is there.

...in reality, perfect shots are not common unless you're shooting from a tripod, or in excellent light with very high shutter speeds. There is also any number of threads, user reviews, etc of D800 complaining of inability to take a sharp picture due to mirror slap and such, which forces higher shutter speeds, which forces higher ISO, which cuts into DR and resolution.

My D300 has significantly less mirror slap than my A850, to the point that I often get better resolution from the D300 at equivalent focal lengths (i.e., 200mm on the D300 will resolve more than 280mm on the A850). Obviously the larger mirror on the A850 plays a role here. This is one of the reasons I will go to my D300 instead of my A850 (the other reason is the D300's better AF) for telephoto work.

I've wondered about the D800's mirror slap; I bet the D3x has less due to its larger body. Not only can we expect better performance from a DX camera using the same or greater pixel density than from an FX camera in this regard, but we also get better performance from heavier bodies (smoothness of the mirror dampening also plays a role and I've heard good things about the D7000 in this regard).

As regards D7000, this is something that is hard to prove, but I was occasionally getting some blur at shutter speeds relative to FL where I wouldn't expect it. So, I'm leaning toward using handheld shutter speeds of closer to 3x over FL. I had trouble attributing it all to my trembling hands, particularly since I'm doing much better with both D300 and D700, so it had to be something about the camera itself. I'm using the "Quiet" mode on D7000 now, and, again without any hard proof, my impression is that it does better this way. The D7000 is actually one camera which negatively impacted my attitude to the D800, because some of the complaints I heard about D800 seemed to be reminiscent of some of the D7000 issues, or, at any rate, of my interpretation of those issues.

Thank you for that.  We are well past the old film rule of thumb of 1x over focal length in this regard since that was an approximation intended for 8x10 inch prints.  With my my D200 I found that I had to use Exposure Delay or MLU at any focal length below about 1/200s and that went to 1/250s with my D300 and has gone backwards with my A850.  This is of course about hand held photography, working with a tripod, MLU, and remote cord we can accomplish a lot more (see my other post for more about theoretical resolution).

backayonder Senior Member • Posts: 1,201
Re: Thom on Nikon's unanswered questions...
1

Good points and one of reasons that I have not bought a new Camera and when I do chances are it won't be a Nikon. At the moment they do not have anything that interests me.

-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads