«

On May 23, 10:44*pm, Croosh <ycro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 4:17*pm, "PDM" <pdcm99minus this b...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I see your point, but:
> > 1) I am fairly sure thatD80overexposing is not my technique. I've
> > been shooting slides for about 12 years (before getting d70), and I am
> > painfully aware of the importance of the exposure.
> > I think that matrix metering inD80is just "flaky", becuase in center
> > weighted or spot mode I don't have that issue.
>
> > Just been on Ken Rockwell's sitehttp://www.kenrockwell.com/whoalso
> > mentions the problems with the matrix mode overexposing on theD80and D40
> > D40x. Says these cameras are set to record shadow detail at expense of
> > highlights. Also says this not a problem with the D200 (and presumably with
> > the D300). So there you are; Nikon have screwed up. Perhaps if we all e-mail
> > Nikon and complain they may bring out a firmware update.
>
> > PDM
>
> OK,
> I came across a D200 with my name on it (almost unused, with the grip
> and an exptra battery and 2 year warranty for 1K$). Averaged80sale
> price on eBay is around $600, so for $400 difference I couldn't
> justify not getting a d200 (vs. d300). BTW, the guy at the store (it's
> a small repair shop) said that he's heard a lot of compalints aboutd80matrix metering, and how it is unpredictable to a degree.
> *I obviously haven't had a chance to take it to the field, but I did a
> couple of shots from my balcony and although both cameras were set to
> the same settings,D80managed to blow the sky out, whereas d200
> didn't. I will play some more over the long weekend and see how they
> compare. So far I like having the critical functions behind dedicated
> buttons/switches. I newer could change too many things ind80while
> looking through the viewfinder. One negative thing I've nottices is
> that d200 focuses a tiny bit slower. In a couple of casesd80locked
> on first pass, where d200 went back and forth...
> Now I can reunite with my 105mm f2.8 AI micro nikkor and get the 35mm
> f2
>
> Thank's for the suggestions.
>
> Regards
> Yuriy

OK, Little more follow-up info:

D200 definitely doesn't have the exposure issue. So far, with no
compenstaion, histograms are where they are supposed to be.
Now, here is a little twist on the focusing issue: it turns out the
issue is somehow lens related. I did a little testing with a "focusing
chart" (AKA a piece of paper with thin parallel lines 1/4" apart) and
my 50mm 1.8 focuses almost an inch behind the target. I'm still
buffled how that happens, as I was under impression that the focusing
system works by comparing contrast, but the issue only manifests
itself with that lens. 20mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.8 , as well as 80-200 2.8
focused right on target. (I took the pictures with the apertures wide
open).

I'd appreceite any ideas (as to why that happens).

On the other hand, while the "picture quality" is about the same, and
even a little more noisy at ISO 400 (which in my case is purely
theoretical, as I usually stay at 100 except in emergency situations),
but the camera operation is SO MUCH better. I can change most of the
parameters without taking my eye off the viewfinder, the shooter feels
a little faster (might be jut my perception, though), and the extra
400g of weight make the camera feel a lot more sturdy.

In article <>, PDM <
> wrote:

> So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?

<http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>

While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.

I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
The Onion.

I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
overactive minds as a practical joke.

nospam wrote:

> In article <>, PDM <
> > wrote:
>
>> So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?
>
> <http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>
>
> While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
> aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
> detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.
>
> I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
> deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
> things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
> legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
> that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
> The Onion.
>
> I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
> hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
> overactive minds as a practical joke.

http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project --> http://improve-usenet.org
Found 5/08: a free GG-blocking news *feed* --> http://usenet4all.se

On May 25, 2:12*pm, Blinky the Shark <no.s...@box.invalid> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
> > In article <483916e...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, PDM <
> > b...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?
>
> > <http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>
>
> > While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
> > aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
> > detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.
>
> > I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
> > deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
> > things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
> > legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
> > that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
> > The Onion.
>
> > I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
> > hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
> > overactive minds as a practical joke.
>
> http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
>
> --
> Blinky
> Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project --> *http://improve-usenet.org
> Found 5/08: a free GG-blocking news *feed* --> *http://usenet4all.se- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL. I knew something was watching me last sunday

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:250520081245408191%...
> In article <>, PDM <
> > wrote:
>
>> So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?
>
> <http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>
>
> While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
> aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
> detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.
>
> I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
> deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
> things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
> legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
> that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
> The Onion.
>
> I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
> hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
> overactive minds as a practical joke.

Well I still like the site. He still talks some sense to me and I find it
useful. I've found out by experience that we agree on quite of lot. And I
enjoy his humorous style.

PDM

OK, Little more follow-up info:

D200 definitely doesn't have the exposure issue. So far, with no
compenstaion, histograms are where they are supposed to be.
Now, here is a little twist on the focusing issue: it turns out the
issue is somehow lens related. I did a little testing with a "focusing
chart" (AKA a piece of paper with thin parallel lines 1/4" apart) and
my 50mm 1.8 focuses almost an inch behind the target. I'm still
buffled how that happens, as I was under impression that the focusing
system works by comparing contrast, but the issue only manifests
itself with that lens. 20mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.8 , as well as 80-200 2.8
focused right on target. (I took the pictures with the apertures wide
open).
<SNIP>

I tried out a 550-200VR a few months ago. Although the focus appeared to
lock on, when the image was examined it was dreadfully out of focus. We came
to the conclusion that a lens element was misaligned. You could even tell
by looking at the screen. So how was the camera able to lock on such a poor
image? I can't think how.

PDM

On May 25, 12:45*pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <483916e...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, PDM <
>
> b...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?
>
> <http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>
>
> While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
> aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
> detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.
>
> I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
> deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
> things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
> legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
> that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
> The Onion.
>
> I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
> hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
> overactive minds as a practical joke.

Well, as a professional web developer, I can tell you one thing
Rockwell excells at: SEO (search engine optimization). 90% of my
searches he came up first.
On the other hand, if you can get over the fact that he "reviews" the
products without touching them, his site does have some good info. I
wouldn't use it as a gospel. Just treat take it for waht it is: the
guy is a *writer*, not a *photographer*. He makes his living by
soliciting clicks on his sponsors' products... You'd hope that people
looking to spend thousand of dollars on a camera don't just go to his
site, read one page and go for the credit card.

Just my $0.02 worth.
Yuriy