Thom hogan d300s guide torrent download

You may think that you're well versed on Nikon cameras at this point, but in putting together this book I found dozens of small changes and differences that are important for you to know. Moreover, in my continued use of these cameras I found certain tips and tricks that are useful for any Z6 or Z7 user to know. This book covers everything thus the name.

I'll walk you through why the new lens mount is significant, what older lenses you can use with the FTZ Adapter, and how the Z focus system actually is put together and works. Pretty much everything that's known about the Z system is in this book, including why Nikon doesn't want you physically touching the sensor to clean it that's in a footnote, but it's there. Moreover, the Third Edition is current with the 3. You'll find deep-yet-understandable explanations with more examples and suggestions than in other guides you can buy, all in the no-nonsense and understandable writing style for which Thom Hogan has become famous.

No matter how well you think you know the Nikon Z cameras, you'll find things in this work that you didn't know about the Z6 and Z7. That's why it's called a "complete guide. I'm still learning my Ds but I do find the book to be very helpful and informative. It's also very convenient to have the E-Book version on my iPad. Also, the highlighted areas in the book are hyperlinks on the CD. Well done, Thom!

I bought the CD when I got my D and it was immensely helpful; the D is a rather complex machine and Hogan clarified a lot of things. I haven't quite finished reading the user's manual from Nikon for the second time. It will be interesting to compare Thom's with Nikon's. I bought the one for the F 6 about a year ago and just downloaded it to my Kindle Fire. The Kindle Fires are amazing for what they do for their cost.

I generally equate the D manual to Moby Dick the book, not the whale. It's about the same length and is equally mysterious. Exposure Software's latest release, Exposure X7, offers impressive editing performance and great image quality along with a solid feature set that gives Adobe Lightroom a run for its money but without the monthly subscription.

Get all the details in our review. The new Dell XPS 17 is a solid laptop with a sleek design language, great build quality, and a color-accurate inch display.

But we're not sure Dell has done enough to differentiate it from its little brother, the XPS Is it worth the hefty price tag? We take a look at the Cine, the high-end model in this series. The Nikon Z9 is the company's first camera to feature a stacked CMOS sensor, which brings a raft of new features, including blazing speed and autofocus performance to the Z lineup.

Click through for our detailed first impressions of Nikon's latest professional ILC. The Sony a7 IV is the fourth generation of the company's core a7 full-frame mirrorless camera model, and it's the most advanced yet.

Click through for an in-depth look at Sony's latest full-frame mirrorless ILC. If you're looking for the perfect drone for yourself, or to gift someone special, we've gone through all of the options and selected our favorites.

These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.

We looked at cameras with selfie-friendly screens, wide-angle lenses, microphone inputs and great video quality, and selected the best. Submit a News Tip! Reading mode: Light Dark. Login Register. Best cameras and lenses. Started Feb 15, Discussions. Forum Threaded view.

Feb 15, Alternately, can anyone recommend settings on the camera for good jpegs? DaveOl's gear list: DaveOl's gear list. Reply to thread Reply with quote Complain. I still have to carry an extra EN-EL3e battery with me, but I don't end up sticking it into my camera very often, as I'm tending to get by on a "battery a day. Still, overall I'd characterize the battery performance as good enough to not be an issue. Writing to Card — CompactFlash write performance can be superb with the right card.

I use the words "can be" because you really need a UDMA-enabled card e. I clearly get a frame or two benefit in the buffer with UDMA-enabled cards, and the buffer clears measurably faster. That's not to say that earlier generation cards are slugs--the D seems to operate about the same speed as a D with my SanDisk Extreme III cards, for example, which means that it's in the 8MBs per second range that the D and D2 series seem to manage with fast-but-non-UDMA cards.

Trust me, they're worth it. Microdrive performance was sluggish comparatively, though still faster than a Microdrive in earlier generation Nikon DSLRs. One thing to note is that file sizes are larger, even enough larger than the D that you might end up rethinking your card sizes. NEFs range in size from There's a dynamic here that you need to consider: the bigger a card, the more your images are at risk to a card failure or loss; the smaller the cards, the more you have to change them and the more likely you'll misplace one.

I've now got a pretty large mishmash of cards I can test in cameras. I've yet to see any that misbehave in my D Autofocus System — Autofocus performance is excellent, with one caveat.

On the D, the new CAM sensor covers a very large portion of the frame, which means that the system is very good at following subject motion and managing off-center autofocus. Coupled with the scene recognition that is being done by the metering CCD in the viewfinder, the new system is sometimes so uncanny in 51 point 3D or Auto Area focus mode that it boggles the mind. This happens most often when there are faces or other skin tone in the area covered by the autofocus sensors.

As it turns out, while various skin tones can look fairly different to us humans, to an RGB metering system they all are in the same narrow range and thus easily detectable. However, note that when you're in non-white light--some fluorescent and sodium vapor, for example--this system seems to not work anywhere near as well, probably because the color tint from the lighting is polluting the skin tones the camera is trying to detect.

Low light focusing is also surprisingly good. While only the center 15 autofocus sensors are cross hatched and more sensitive to low light, if there's enough contrast under the outlying 36 sensors the D still seems to be able to focus.

But in general I find only the inner autofocus sensors confident and reliable in low light with Single Area AF. The D does a very good job with erratically moving objects, such as flying birds and some sports. Indeed, I'd place it much better than the D in this respect, and perhaps as good as the D2 series if there's adequate light.

Only when the light gets dim and the subject gets decidedly out of the central area did I find any problems with tracking moving subjects.

So far, all good news, right? Well, there's some bad news, too. Be prepared to completely forget how you used to set autofocus on previous Nikon DSLRs and prepare to take considerable time figuring out how to optimize your use of the new system. I'll have much more to say in my eBook, but here's the learning approach that I think works best:. By the time you've completed that progression of testing, you should have a good idea about what things work for which subjects.

Which brings me to my point: more so than any previous Nikon camera, I find myself changing autofocus settings more often with the D and D3 than ever before. There's no "does it all" setting you're going to dial in and forget with this system. So what's the caveat? The D has a little catch to its autofocus system that the D3 doesn't. The initial acquisition of autofocus seems to have just a bit of lag to it, though once focus is found the system is state-of-the-art in speed.

Get in the habit of starting focus early and you'll be fine. Blues tend to more magenta-ish than cyan, the greens are accurate, and the warm colors all tend to have a bit too much yellow in them most people will like that, especially for skin tones. But that's nit-picking; the overall color accuracy is good enough to not worry about the minor drifts. White balance, on the other hand, is a different story.

It is decidedly less accurate than I expected. In low color temperature lighting and in my "wicked test" of mixed lighting incandescent, fluorescent, reflected ambient off colored walls, indirect daylight through a window, plus flash , the D just doesn't come close to some earlier Nikons. The error on the wicked test seems to be consistently on the high side across all tonal values though some other cameras I've tested in this lighting had highlights going above the actual Kelvin and shadows going below.

The direct Kelvin settings once again didn't match my Minolta Color Meter. Unlike the D, the D's settings seem slightly inconsistent to my color meter. In the mid-range color temperatures e. Over and over on my Patagonia trip I found that I could guess the setting better than the camera could. True, I've been setting white balance on cameras since the early 's, and have learned how to recognize different lighting.

But you'd think by now a camera that does a good job of detecting white in the exposure meter ought to be able to figure out color temperature better than it does. The white balance system is also different in how you bias it, which is going to confuse a lot of people. No longer can you set Cloudy That would be closer to Cloudy A2 now, though the changes Nikon made means you can't set exactly the same thing as Cloudy -2 anymore. While I appreciate that the new adjustments are a constant MIRED apart they weren't before , it took me a while to get used to the new adjustments.

Overall, there seems to be something slightly different about white balance in the D and D3 : it's as if the rotation of colors is being done slightly differently, so the changes to reds and blues with basically the same white balance setting looks ever so slightly different to me on the D than it does with the D Overall, color is good once you get a handle on the new white balance settings.

Be careful of saturation, though. Especially if you crank up the saturation controls you can end up with images that are cartoonish and don't easily adjust back. Noise — Let's start with amp noise: better than the D, much better than the D80, but still not clean. Run a minute exposure without Long Exposure NR and then run it through Auto Levels in Photoshop if you want the news delivered in the worst possible way.

The upper left corner and lower right corner have very slight tendencies towards amp noise. This worsens with use of Live View and any other heat production. On the other hand, Long Exposure NR removes it well, and the amp noise that does live in those exposures is very low level compared to the last generation of Nikons, where it was obvious without post processing. Take the improvement and move on. Overall, the regular noise is decently controlled on the D You're probably expecting me to say that the new camera is a slam dunk better than the D it replaces.

You'd be wrong. This is one of those good news, bad news situations again. From a general shooting standpoint I'd say the D is clearly usable at a stop higher ISO than the D, but only if you nail the exposure.

Scenes and areas that are mostly dark--yet properly exposed--will reveal noise. The in-camera noise reduction is visibly better on the D than the D by my eyeballs not so much in measurement, so it must be the character of the noise , so ISO becomes just barely usable for you JPEG shooters.

One thing holding me back from praising the noise handling of the D is that the red channel seems a bit noisy to me. On most previous Nikons, the blue channel was the clearly outlying channel, and tended to be the first to produce noise.

Not so on the D Under many settings and lighting situations the red channel noises up faster than the blue. Given that so many things we photograph have a lot of warm color components in them, this means that you sometimes see noise sooner than you'd expect. I'd say that the line between "ignore" and "pay attention to" is somewhere just above ISO I'm very comfortable with ISO to without making any changes to my shooting, without overly worrying about small exposure or white balance misses, without considering the level of in-camera sharpening, and so on.

Like the D2x, there's a low amount of chroma noise when noise does rear up. Better still, the noise patterns tend to be very random looking.

Once again I decided to run some worst case images in the basketball arena where I play, which has horrid light conditions. As with my D2x, this is a worst case image: ISO , underexposed a bit the light is dim and terrible and trying to keep any sort of reasonable shutter speed is impossible , Auto White Balance, no in camera NR turned on. Here's my now requisite worst-case gym shot at ISO The D holds detail and color decently at ISO , however it does not handle underexposure or deep shadows in such cases well.

Sports shooters will find the D better than the D by a good margin, but will have to watch exposure carefully and will want to tweak the camera settings, as well. But when my D3 review comes, you're all going to stop thinking of the D as a decent indoor sports camera. Even though from a numerical standpoint the D3 seems to be only about a stop better than the D, in practice it's night and day--the D3 simply gets the best shots out of this gym I've seen from any DSLR, Canon or Nikon, and it's not really close.

My D doesn't seem as prone to hot pixels as my D80 and D, which is good news. However, using Live View for any length of time most certainly does produce hot pixels. Resolution — The D is near state-of-the-art at 12mp [ state-of-the-art].

Thus, the D is a respectable landscape camera. Given some of the lenses Nikon has put out recently, any softness in the resulting images is probably not the camera's fault. I don't know of any way to reliably make a perfect calculation of when the airy diffraction disc begins to rob acuity from edges.

But I can usually visually see the break point. And at certain settings, the diffraction, noise reduction, and sharpening all start to make hard edges look soft. All these things all add up, though. As I said about the D2x: the D is more camera than some casual users will be able to handle.

Suffice it to say that the D packs plenty of pixels, the camera acquires and produces them well, and unless noise levels are high enough to be visible, you'll have more than enough detail to work with in your D images as long as your shot and work discipline is high. Yes, there is. Can I show it? Probably not. First a reminder: bit is only available when shooting NEF, and the camera's frame rate slows to a maximum of 2.

What do you get with bit that you don't with bit shooting? Well, two bits. That's the difference between and 16, tonal values. The question that lies underneath this one is: is the noise handling of the D good enough to make use of those additional tonal values? My answer to that is a definite maybe. At the base ISO I find it difficult to find anything that shows up as a visible difference.

In a few cases at higher ISO values, I have seen small differences in the shadow detail. I actually tried measuring this by doing an exhaustive series of tests, and I came up with perhaps a third of a stop difference in absolute dynamic range at ISO and ISO , less at other ISO values. Frankly, it's not enough of a difference to worry about. Most people can't see the differences the old Compressed NEF made versus regular NEF--they certainly aren't going to see bits versus bits.

That said, I shoot at bits. Because I do all my NEF editing at 16 bits, and I'd rather have the data than not have it, even if it doesn't really give me a tangible benefit. I long ago learned that software is getting more and more clever at pulling out "errors" in data. Who's to say we won't someday have someone manage to figure out how to pull out the read noise in a raw file? That would likely be enough to reveal what's living down in those extra bits.

Indeed, I can kind of see that today: using image stacking to remove noise with bit images produces images that are spectacularly free of noise at the base ISO.

Dynamic Range — Here's a surprise at least it was to me : the D has more dynamic range than the D and D2xs. Measurably more. Or maybe no. Or maybe maybe. I happen to like the D models quite a bit, and consider them an instant classic, despite those few handling quirks that annoy me.

But whether or not you should get one is a whole different story. I think to do the question in the heading justice, I'm going to have to split you into a lot of subgroups. Let's get started:. It's probably easiest to do this in table form, but first we need to get some basics out of the way: in terms of baseline features, megapixels, shooting controls, etc.

Thus, the differences that would make you switch boil down to autofocus, image quality especially at higher ISO values , and other performance issues. Here's my detailed assessment:. Bottom line: the D2x is an excellent value at the current used prices, making this a very tough choice.

For me, the smaller form factor, lighter carry weight, and high ISO capabilities give the nod to the D, but I'm still very happy with my D2x for landscape work. Unfortunately, here in , the Ds doesn't hold up in terms of value. The lower-priced D outshoots a Ds in almost every way, though it has a more consumerism build and a very small buffer. Buying a new Ds seems like a losing proposition; I'd wait for the D to appear. It turned out to be named D Not Recommended the D was originally recommended in through by me, but I've updated the rating because some folk looking for bargains in the used market may be tempted by it; unfortunately, the recent D7xxx models would be better choices.

Which Nikkors Have Fluorine Coating? What Matters Most? New or Old for the Exotic Telephotos? What is Micro Contrast? What is Tack Sharp? Can I use a Sigma teleconverter on a Nikon lens? Why do you seem to be so negative about teleconverters? How do I stack teleconverters? What About Tripod Specs? What Causes Card Errors? Why can't I find your works in bookstores? Why can't I find your works in the Kindle Nook store? Are all of your older Complete Guides still available? Do you ever update your works?

What do your books work on? Can I copy the eBook file to my other computers? Why were some eBooks supplied on a CD? Nikon D Camera Review ». Motor Drive. Vertical grip, Wireless. Low ISO image quality. High ISO image quality. Buffer and Write Speed. Hot pixels, amp noise, long exposure noise. Aug 1, at AM. Looking for gear-specific information? Check out our other Web sites: mirrorless: sansmirror.

LO , , HI Pro D Difference. Pro D3 Difference. LCD protective cover supplied. Extra secondary LCD on back. No slow down at bit setting. Taken and Remaining shots displayed. Tripod Live View supports histograms. Slight lag in acquiring initial focus compared to D2x. Surprisingly good in low light. Biggest weakness: slow initial acquisition.