Slideshow Bob

It's probably best to use the D750 when your subject is close enough to get the framing right, and the D7200 when you're focal length limited. Changing bodies might be a nuisance, but it'll get ...

What's your point? I only mentioned the fact that Nikon first used in-lens focus motors in 1983, rather than 1998. A fact is a fact.

And yet the Nikon 14-24 is still considered a classic wide angle lens. Wow, it looks like Nikon managed to overcome the BS you're trying to hang on them. Why, there must be a whole host of better ...

Wow, you are arrogant, aren't you. Actually, the first Nikon lenses that had an AF motor in the lens were the two lenses that were released for the Nikon F3AF in 1983. And yes, Nikon's current AF ...

See, you keep making a distinction between mirrorless and DSLR lenses, but there is no difference. The mount might be different, but the lens itself is the same size and weight. No, you can have a ...

You've hit the nail on the head. It's crazy. People are obsessed with "smaller", and there seems to be this false logic at work that seems to go something like "I want a smaller lighter camera, ...

You stated that the main potential benefit of mirrorless lenses would be size/weight. I gave a bunch of specific examples that prove you wrong. What has a limited system like Leica got to do with ...

Yep. There is no mirrorless advantage when it comes to lens weight. Simple. Oops, I see I made a mistake in my post. It should have read "Why people keep talking about mirrorless lenses being lighter ...

Nikon have done f/1.2. They also make the fastest 105mm lens currently available. I don't think anyone is going to build a new mount just so esoteric super fast manual focus lenses can be used. Why ...

O.k. But I have to ask, what benefits? There are downsides to adapted lenses. Focusing usually suffers to some extent. So if Nikon's best professional lenses won't be used on mirrorless, then you ...

So basically you think that Nikon should duplicate their entire lens lineup with a new mount? I can't even imagine how long that would take, and how much it would cost. If they start from zero, ...

Mike, NASA have a long history of image enhancement, but that's not the point. The point is data collection. Even NASA can't show you an image of something that their amazingly expensive and heavy ...

Right, but that's just a deficiency of the delivery medium. It has nothing to do with the production of the music you listened to via that delivery medium. They didn't use mediocre microphones, ...

Yep! Look at a photo taken with a bad lens that has loads of distortion, but that has been "corrected" in software. Now look at a photo taken with a terrific lens with tiny amounts of distortion ...

Focus stacking is only required because lenses have limited depth of field. More specifically, diffraction starts to limit the resolution of a lens at smaller apertures, so it makes sense to take ...

Moral judgment? No, it's a purely objective approach based on whether one thing is better than another. Is 2 pixels of chromatic aberration better, the same as, or worse than 0.25 pixels of ...

Helicon Focus is simply a focus stacking program. If all the source shots that the stacking relies on have lens aberrations, it won't work so well. It produces a good result that is reliant on the ...

I think you're entirely missing the point. Who cares about "computational image making"? Why would you buy a worse lens, and then fix it with software? Why wouldn't you just buy a good lens in the ...

The problem with the A9 is that in it's class, where very expensive and necessarily big and heavy lenses are so often used, "sleek, light weight, and compact" are most certainly downsides. It's ...

I have 8 DOF calculators that all say 209m or 212m is the total DOF at 300m, with a 400 f/5.6 lens. The point being, it's not particularly challenging. I used to get pretty close to 100% accuracy ...