Comments on: Nikon related news/links

By: miau

miau — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:32:57 +0000

hmm.. that “nikon – your day” video is pretty… embarrassing

By: Cesar

Cesar — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:38:53 +0000

Selling a 14.000 dollar lens on ebay and THAT’S the best picture you can take of it????????

By: WoutK89

WoutK89 — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:20:44 +0000

well, actually I have a 18-70DX, 70-300VR, and 50/1.4G, all have this thingy, and it does cover most of the lenses mount

By: bla

bla — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:38:55 +0000

The rubber ring is only there to avoid for dirt getting into the camera. It is NOT sealing the lens mount on the camera mount at all. You obviously have no idea where this rubber ring is; but since you say you have a 16-85: that has this rubber ring too. So, it’s a nice thingie, but not worth much in the consideration, and it certainly won’t help against sand.

By: Soap

Soap — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:23:46 +0000

Haha!
I was just about to open the audio myself.

By: WoutK89

WoutK89 — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:47:57 +0000

for a lot of macro moments you wont handhold anyway, so weight and size are in that case secondary specifications.

By: Micah

Micah — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:36:42 +0000

Just out of curiosity, I opened the video and isolated the soundtrack. It’s a smidge over 8fps, but not even close to 9pfs.

Ok, it took all of two minutes to do…still I feel lame for looking. Like maybe it was possible.

By: Micah

Micah — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:19:24 +0000

Wait, did any 16gb card work in your camera? Are you sure that there wasn’t just an 8gb limit with your camera?

By: another anonymous

another anonymous — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:08:40 +0000

maybe size andf weight is the difference.. just maybe not for you and surely not for me, i have 105 VR

By: Micah

Micah — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:00:20 +0000

I’ve not had that experience. But I’ve had bad Lexar and Sandisk cards, both pro and non, so it’s all just odds anyway.

I have 4 120x 8gb Transcends and a 16gb 300x/udma card. All ran fine all the way to full in D2x’s, D3′s, D300′s, D700′s.

Got 256mb, 4gb, 16gb, and 32gb sds for my d90 and PDA and they don’t give me trouble at all either. In fact all function reliably at or above rated speeds.

Indeed, prices have come way down on Sandisk and are up on the transcend cards on newegg. Sandisk is $180 for the card I paid $120 for in Transcend branding. And The Transcend one is up to $144. Sandisk was $300+ when I paid $120 for my card.

But with the track record I’ve had with them, I’ll stick with them. When I get a bum card I’ll reconsider. Hasn’t happened yet.

My 9 year old Transcend 256mb CF has even been through the wash…my brother is using it today. Still works great.

It’s all random chance I guess.

By: Fotograf Stuttgart

Fotograf Stuttgart — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:35:19 +0000

i think it is as good as one would expect from still camera recording movies. good for actual photographers when video fans in pursuit to find free beer will keep prices of our gear reasonable

By: Fotograf Stuttgart

Fotograf Stuttgart — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:30:02 +0000

i think you rather have unprecise measurement. Take sequence while actually shooting some precise milisecond timer and you will see.

By: Fotograf Stuttgart

Fotograf Stuttgart — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:26:33 +0000

16 GB Transcend cards were not working in D300 and other nikon cameras. They stopped recording at about 8GB. Had few of them for my MF cameras so it was not single card/single camera issue. 8 GB and lower were ok. Better Transcends we didnt tested but had generally bad experience with SD cards from them.
Thing is on memory cards, that their price almost copy value of the chips used, so you get +/-10Eur packaging difference what you pay for.

By: PJS

PJS — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:45:46 +0000

The modification is probably why it’s selling for 1/2 the list price, according to Vink’s database….

By: fotograf nunta Iasi

fotograf nunta Iasi — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:21:10 +0000

That Think Tank Photo looks like a very useful stuff. I think I will buy one.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:12:12 +0000

oh cool – I did not know they are available in Adorama, thanks! I will update the post.

By: WoutK89

WoutK89 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:53:51 +0000

It is more low light, compared to the 16-85VR DX, I said lower light capable, not low light completely dark

The rubber seal in my eyes works a treat when using it in sandy areas for instance, my old Tamron tele (70-300) had some scratches on the mount because of sand getting stuck between lens and camera body. (if it doesn’t help, it probably wouldn’t hurt too)

and about the gold ringed, it was only a joke! Most important was the FX capability.

By: Anony-mou

Anony-mou — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:37:54 +0000

As long as it’s got sleeve technology I say nice too.

By: Anony-mou

Anony-mou — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:37:18 +0000

Come on… At least it’s got a poor man’s Brad Pitt and some serious special effects. Can’t go wrong with that.

By: iamlucky13

iamlucky13 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:32:52 +0000

FYI, the first photo in the Ebay link looks like a dead ringer for “Pro Optic” branded tubes I just bought for $85 (US) from Adorama. The second picture on the ebay link, however, appears to show a plastic bayonet. Mine are metal both on the bayonet side and the female side. The box said “Meike” on it, which I assume is the company that made them for Adorama to rebrand.

Here’s the product on Adorama’s site. The picture is apparently outdated. I also saw them at some point on Amazon.
http://www.adorama.com/MCAETNKAF.html