Marianne Oelund

You can't get consistent exposure with 1/200 shutter.  As I said before, set your shutter speed to 1/50 or 1/100 and try again. And yes, I do see the problem, and that's why I know your shutter ...

There is nothing wrong with your camera. Even without EXIF data, I can tell your shutter speed was set too high for consistent exposure under your indoor lighting. Drop your shutter speed to 1/50 ...

The focus confirmation dot cannot tell you whether or not the lens needs fine tuning. Looks like a front-focus issue to me.  Try again with AF fine-tune set to +10, +15 and +20.

Of course it does. However, that includes colors outside of the visible range.  Xenon has a significant portion of its spectrum in the infrared range between 750nm and 1000nm.  That means you can't ...

It's not hard to guess.  Anything that is money-saving or provides a competitive advantage is tempting. They have told us that it is reversible.  That's a mathematical term which means the original ...

Some of us are also D8xx owners.  :)

Think about this:  When you place your eye at the viewfinder port, what is defining the aperture of the light path - the port, or the pupil of your eye?  That is, which is smaller? Now also ...

I wonder if there is something amiss with the focus limiter mechanism.  Does the focus limiter switch work correctly?

You need to tell us the story behind this capture! Where was it, the circumstances, why the peacock was flying, etc.  What is it a single-opportunity grab shot, or was the flight activity continuing? ...

No.  It is Leonard's explanation for a phenomenon which is actually due to limited viewscreen scattering, not eyepiece aperture.  The limitation occurs on the lens side of the screen, not the ...

This is one of those situations where there isn't a substitute for FX gear.  You would need a 60-300 f/4 or 50-250 f/4, neither of which have ever been made.  The closest is a 100-300 f/4 (I wish ...

They didn't move it.  The higher-end cameras have always had a separate OK (or ENTER) button.  More back panel real estate, more buttons with a wider variety of functions immediately available. ...

You can find all of this information and much more at http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html

From what I've seen, it is rare for reviewers to compare DX and FX cameras, using equivalent lenses. Most simply assume ISO 5000 on FX is the same as ISO 5000 on DX, and never think about how to ...

It isn't at all as simple as the "total data" values you listed above. As data streams into the buffer from the sensor, the camera has to allocate memory space for not only that data, but also for ...

Yes, it is not always correct to assume the FX camera will produce a better image. Using equivalent lenses on each camera, e.g., 300 f/2.8 on FX and 200 f/2 on DX, does mean each sensor receives ...

Saturation does not produce noise, rather it is just the point at which highlights clip.  Noise is present at all signal levels.  In fact, pushing the sensor pixels into saturation removes the ...

Nikon say the Lossless algorithm is "reversible," which does mean decompression restores the original data exactly.  There is absolutely no reason why they would not use a true lossless algorithm, ...

No, that would be an outright lie; the vertical grip structure is alloy. Only the rubber covering, and the battery cover, are not metal.  The D4 has the same parts made of plastic, that the D5 does. ...

No, if you are printing or outputting to the same final complete-image size. Yes, if you are outputting to the same dpi (larger print from higher-resolution camera), and the dpi value is low enough ...