kliftonjk posted a reply: I don't necessarily see anything wrong with the bigger mount... The mount is too small to function properly on 35mm with AFS and VR introduced into the stream (effeciently... why do you think it took so long to get internal motors into their lenses many years after Canon had it standardized)... I would venture to guess even that part of the reason for pushing the DX format was to make things work better with the slightly too small for 35mm mount... We get less light fall off with DX (even w/ DX lenses) and keep the quality up... I don't want a camera smaller than the D50, so I don't see much point in making that smaller. I would like to see a 60mm equivalent of the 85mm f/1.4 a bit smaller with AFS and VR maybe...I'd like to see a Nikkor 50-135mm f/2.8 AFS VR with the performance of the 70-200mm VR, I'd like to see an 18mm equivalent of the 28mm f/2.8 AIS and I'd like to see a 12-14mm DX ultrawide f/2.8 prime (I see no reason why they can't do this, unless they just don't see the market in primes anymore... even though they came out with the rather silly 105mm VR for no reason)... Time will tell, we'll all be partially right and partially wrong at some point I suppose... I have at least three hunks of glass that would be useless on a FF (two of them are my most used optics with the 85mm f/1.4) unless they had a cropped sensor like they introduced with the D2X (FF & 1.5x crop to work with DX) that would make some sense... That I would like... For me it'd be the opposite of what others want probably... I want the 12-24mm to function in DX (If I'm going to have a zoom wide angle I want it to be lighter than the 17-35mm) and have the 85mm f/1.4 in FF (which would get me back where I want with my FOV).... So maybe that's the answer we'll get with the D3, it'll probably make everyone happy doing that... :) Though the $6,500+ price tag probably won't make everyone happy...

jzinsd posted a reply: I've noticed that when carrying this lens around face down it will slowly extend. If you have your camera strap over your shoulder and don't notice it you can easily bang into something. I guess you need to keep it level to prevent this from happening. grrrr.

33-13 posted a reply: I purposefully bought all my glass in the hopes that a FF camera would be coming down the line. That is the central issue: I want to go WIDE and see all that the glass has to offer. Its about OPTICS!! The DX line of lenses is a quick-fix, if nikon keeps the small sensor, why not shrink down the lenses and bodies in the future and just create everything around the scale of the sensor? All the optical and image quality with 25% les lens bulk and size would be kinda cool. Of course this would mean a whole new series of lenses with a smaller mount. For nikon to have it both ways (old lens mount engineered over 60 years for 35mm film with a small sensor) is just lazy.

kliftonjk posted a reply: I fully agree with you here, Larry! Very well stated! Your two cents is worth about $1,038.09 to me. ;) I say leave the 24x36 and larger digital format to the Hasselblad realm for those that really want to spend the bucks... Keep 35mm to 35mm standards (in this case DX standards) and invest the R&D in glass for the DX size rather than introducing a high res 24x36 sensor that will probably require all new glass anyway (though the current glass would work I doubt it'd take this larger sensor to its full capabilities).

larrygerbrandt posted a reply: My investment in Nikon bodies pales in comparison with my investment in Nikon glass. After acquiring a bunch of DX lenses the notion of having to duplicate the glass to use a full-frame sensor makes my wallet scream for mercy. If they can keep the size of the sensor the same and in each generation increase the sensitivity and resolution, I would be happy to keep buying new DX glass and upgrade to the newest D body every 3-4 years. Seriously, being able to standardize on a single sensor size would, in my opinion, provide some sense of stability in a digital world that changes standards far too frequently as it is. Unlike spending a couple hundred bucks for an iPod, those of us who are serious about cameras invests THOUSANDS in a particular brand and format. Just my humble two cents.

nomoveon posted a reply: You will hate the creep, if you do a long exposure. I still think that they could ad a lock button for a lens that creeps extensively, that would have been so easy.

aqui-ali posted a reply: I second lens pen. I have one myself and it works a charm...

Ben McLeod posted a reply: I don't use filters (well, I do like to use a circular polarizer...) because I got sick of light artifacts and other strange things showing up in my shots. I've found that hoods do a great job of protecting the lens (and they have the added benefit of making me look damn sexy). Lens clothes tend to just spread the olis and shmeg around your lens without actually cleaning it. The cleaning fluids scare me. I found that the lens tissues are the best. I start with using the blower to remove any particles, then, if needed, I use a lens tissue with either some breathe (I literally breathe on the lens) or, if the lens is real dirty, a little water. I finish with the blower to get rid of little pieces of lens tissue.

Pueblo Gary posted a reply: I have been using the Lens Pens for several years with no adverse effects on my lenses. they do a very good job. www.lenspen.com/

Phojo posted a reply: Heck, my 80-200/2.8 does it. Nothing out of the norm. I'd rather have the zoom a bit loose than too tight.

Gun Sydney posted a reply: I've also found instruction from Ken Rockwell is qutie useful. www.kenrockwell.com/tech/cleaning.htm

djh644 posted a reply: Zerajera, I have the same problem. I used to use filters but I can't get them clean now, they are all smeared looking. It's very frustrating.

GeoGyles posted a reply: Hello I purchased mine at a Navy Exchange in Naples Italy. With the same lens for $1850. I cant stand to hold my D70 anymore.

kliftonjk posted a reply: It doesn't really look any better. :) Nikon hit the APS thing pretty hard... Maybe that's why they love DX sized sensors so much... They can finally use all that APS design for something. ;)

carpe icthus posted a reply: That camera was released as this: Pronea 6i

UrbanTiki posted a reply: Yes, my 18-200 VR is horrible with this. It's the only thing I would really correct, but yes, as Gun Sydney says, it's prevalent in zooms.

Gun Sydney posted a reply: The experience you have is called "Lens Creep". It's apparently normal for zoom lenses. More details from here. www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_cou...

nomoveon posted a reply: Same with mine. Nikon did not ad a lock button (shame on them), that would be helpful with tripod work. It's more like a walkaround point and shot lens, but it's still very nice in my opinion. To tilt it on a tripod you'll need duct tape:)

Rob Gillespie posted a reply: > "Not on my D200 it doesn't ;-) If I'm in BKT mode I have to press the shutter 3 times " It will do that if you've got the shooting dial set to Single ('S') mode. I tend to keep it on Continuous ('CL' or 'CH') so that would account for the different behaviour.

ChrisMaughan posted a reply: Aha! I get the behaviour you describe if I also have the camera in burst mode (Ch/Cl). In 'S' mode I get the behaviour I describe. So it seems that in Ch + BKT mode I get a single burst group, but with Ch + BKT mode + BKT burst button I get repeating bracket sets. In single shot mode + BKT mode I get individual shots. In single shot mode + BKT mode + BKT burst button I get the complete bracked set. Clear as mud ;) So it seems that the bracket burst enables you to get all shots in a bracket set, without having to set the camera into Ch/Cl mode, OR it lets you repeatedly run the bracket set if you are in Ch/Cl mode. :-)