Marianne Oelund

No, the D500 shutter is a completely different design, if for no other reason than the fact that it's a DX camera.

They thought that the smoke would "open their lungs" and it was used especially before hard climbs.  Of course the reality is that smoke is an irritant and causes mucus secretions which do nothing ...

It's an on-the-road impromptu solution.  I've done it countless times and it's very effective.  Of course, that's also due to removing dirt particles, and the technique may not be as effective ...

If I have a lens mounting very stiffly, I will rub my finger around the lens and camera mount rings.  It leaves a slight film of oil which can help quite a bit. I often use the same trick with the ...

They don't work to the level of precision that I want for astrophotography.  I'm sure they would simply return the camera to me as "in spec." I also have a number of lenses which need shims ...

Thanks for the clarification.  The 200 f/4 AF-D is considered the better of the 200's. I have the 55/3.5 non-AI compensating type, so I know how sharp the old 55's are.  I also have the AF-D micro ...

After finding issues with my D800E's sensor alignment, I no longer own a high-resolution FX body (considering "high-resolution" to be over 30Mpix). I'm waiting for a D850A to show up.  If it ...

Is that the AIs 105/2.8?  Nikon have made three different 105/2.8 macro lenses, all with very different optical formulas. When you compare it to the 200 f/4, do you mean the AI/AIs version, rather ...

Yes, I must complain as well. It's terrible to be led to a cat photo, only to find that it's front-focused!

No, they cannot.  That is the domain of AF calibration, as I explained before. Optical designers decide how and to what extent they will correct for spherical aberration (SA).  That determines the ...

You're trying to correlate unrelated parameters. PDAF accuracy depends entirely on calibration, including having a correct AF fine tune value entered, if needed. Until initial calibration is done ...

Even at f/4.5, DOF at this distance is very shallow.  At f/1.8, there would be far fewer details in focus.

Corners are better than any of the 20mm to 35mm f/1.8G primes.  I would call them sharp. In fact, corners are better than I ever expected to see on a wide prime with AF under $5000.

Build quality, yes.  Manual focus, yes.  The AF of the 28 works accurately on my cameras, but it doesn't have the speed of a sports/action lens.  I can't compare it to the 24/1.8G as I do not ...

Focus shift like this is due to undercorrected spherical aberration.  Your photo at 50mm and f/3.5 (wide open) definitely shows SA.  In some lens designs, the focus shift manifests more between 1- ...

Under corrected SA is as common as dandelions, among lens designs of all eras.  There is "Zeiss glow," "Sigma glow," "Nikon glow," "Canon glow," etc. - so how about if we be fair, and just call it ...

Here are some examples, where you can see how visible the noise is, depending on SNR and tone. SNR visibility under daylight-balance lighting SNR visibility under halogen lighting How do you like ...

That is correct, on average.  Also see John Sheehy's comments and the table that Bill Claff posted. Atomic physics is often counter-intuitive.  You cannot expect it to always make sense.

Of course recognizable grain and structure may not vary a great deal - but I can assure you that the SNR is widely ranging across this image, and would even if there were only a single illuminant ...

The problem with most indoor light sources (at least those used in the dimmest venues such as bars, concert stage lighting, etc.) is that they are not balanced, i.e., they lack intensity over a ...