MrZorbatron

I actually meant for cell site pictures. I use an old (personally restored) 2x3 baby press camera with b&w for some things for fun sometimes. I have taken lots of cell site pictures with my old A1 because I have a 600mm lens for it and until recently, did not for my Nikons. I have a 4/3 lens that hits 300mm, but my bag with my E5 and a couple other lenses got stolen a few months ago. Never decided if I might just sell my remaining 4/3 gear or buy another E5. I really loved that camera, it felt indestructible and the pictures seemed to never need to be touched, though never looked processed. Incidentally, the Sigma 150-500 for Nikon is outstanding. I was very surprised for a $1200 lens. It's actually hand holdable much of the time.

I think I am the only S4GRU member who still uses film at all.

Do NOT do this. If you want to understand sensitivity, light, and exposure, auto ISO is not the way to do it. If you do use auto, beware of noise and do not set it above about 800. Auto ISO can kind of impart a feeling of more capability than you actually have, or actually know how to use. Even in the dark, it's a lot better to brace the camera against something than cranking the ISO to 3200+. Detail suffers rapidly. You should also set noise reduction to a conservative setting, not Auto. Auto NR is for the idiot who just takes his card to the drug store to print and always wants a non grainy picture, never knowing that his pictures are crap because he prints 4x6s of everything. It is quite easy to eliminate noise in post processing and retain a lot more detail than most cameras will retain if you have them do it internally. On your camera, consider going over 3200 to be a zone of last resort. It's what you do if you if it's more important to get the shot than that the shot be good. Don't forget, the 35mm prime lens is going to perform a lot better than simply locking your 18-55 kit lens to 35. You won't believe the difference in low light performance that the larger max aperture will bring. If you do this for this reason, just remember to turn off noise reduction entirely.

Is there not a way to determine if it's connected to 1xRTT or 1xA?

Definitely XDA. I haven't seen any NEC devices sold by domestic carriers. Unfortunate too.

Interesting. I assumed the D7100's crop factor was the same as the D300's, which my old D300's manual listed as 1.55. As for the auto crop, I wasn't so much referring to that as to the simple situation of pixel count on APS-C vs APS-C sized crop on FX whether it is in body or not. I've been quite impressed with my D7100 with decent lenses. One thing I have noticed is that using the 28-300 on a DX body does a great deal to hide some of its issues. It came with my D800 as a special deal but I am not find of it. Incidentally, I saw a mention of a 55-200 up there. I have to honestly say that I don't care for it. Yes it's cheap, yes it's sharp. It's also extremely fragile and has no mount seals. The focus mechanism is particularly prone to breaking, too. My first 55-200 I bought as a mid tele for my old D100 (first digital Nikon and a camera I still quite like). It developed a problem where 9/10 times it would not lock focus, but instead rapidly oscillate the focus back and forth by about 2 degrees for as long as AF was active. The 55-300 can be found sometimes for as little as $300, and although quite a bit larger and heavier (the 55-200 is absolutely dinky for the reach it has) it has substantially better build quality, better AF mechanism, better VR, and has seals. I also quite like some of the older Nikon lenses which will unfortunately not focus automatically on the 3100 due to using the screw mechanish on a body which lacks a focus motor. If you ever do upgrade, D7x00, D300s (not sure why anyone would buy that anymore), and all FX bodies to date, do have internal focus motors. Some of those old lenses can be found quite inexpensively and have great optical quality.

don't use UV filters where they might shatter. You can get a pack of cheap Plexi/policarb protectors for that. The broken glass will do more damage to the front element of your lens than any environmental consideration will, and the reduction in quality from the plastic guard isn't bad of it's clean and unscratched (they come in a multipack for a reason).

While I agree on the bit about excessive zoom ratios, 28-300 comes to mind, being too good to be true, I would suggest you get a few inexpensive DX lenses and decide if you will really go far with this. I'll put my D7100 against a D700 any day of the week, so don't think that FX is the do all end all. I have a D800 as well and have to say that in decent lighting, the 7100 always comes out ahead of a similarly sized crop from the 800. Remember that the subject should dictate the camera to a point. I do so much long telephoto stuff that the reduction in size and weight that the DX gear allows is amazingly nice. As far as that 1.55 crop factor goes, 24MP vs about 15MP center crop is a huge difference in decent conditions. Now, there's nothing wrong with using FX lenses on a DX body, the reverse will be less than impressive, generally leading to either an automatic crop to the center of the sensor area or a significant vignette. I still stand behind my suggestion to get a few decent but inexpensive DX lenses, however, as they will prove a valuable learning tool and be very easy to sell if you ever make the switch to FX. Incidentally, the 50/1.8 is sharper than the 35. Not much, but it is. You will notice it more on modern DX bodies due to the pixel density. It is true that it is getting a bit into tele territory, however.

I don't agree on the 35, BTW. Get the 55-300, which can be found for under 400. Get the 50mm /1.8. do not get the 55-200. While great optically, the 55-200 is not a durable lens. The 55-300 is weather sealed I'm case you get a higher end camera. if you want to practice framing by moving around, the 50mm will give you more of a workout. Either way, I suggest you $hitcan the 18-55 in favor of 10-105 as an every day lens. It is sharper at every length and its implementation of VR is better. Until you are ready to spend $1000 on a walk around lens, you can't get better than the 18-105. Just never forget to play with settings. Your brst learning will happen with the least guidance. Also remember that there is always a reset option if you really screw something up.

Sigma 150-500 plus D7100. End of story for telephoto. If you want affordable, 55-300 DX is very surprisingly good.

Ha! Still bullshit! I actually have been writing a letter-length post to explain a few of my points, but as I have been inordinately preoccupied over the last few days, I haven't finished it.

Agreed. SLR every day. Actually, many of my pictures were taken using Canon A1.

You get a PDF copy immediately and then it comes in the mail within a few days. This is true even as a C Corp.

actually, backhaul won't be as big a beast as you might think it would be. With the processing they're using their data center for, it looks like this would do double duty with its backhaul, just like it would do with his radio signals. I, on the other hand, am talking about spectrum reuse between technologies. Namely, this network, and conventional LTE networks.

Yeah, I saw that, but didn't see details. LTE and CDMA2000 hand off too, but it isn't a handoff of equals. Same with LTE and UMTS, or UMTS and GSM. 800 MHz LTE hands off with 1900 gracefully, but now we are talking about two different bands. If this is the case, and I am over at Sprint trying to deploy this, will it use up all of my 2500 MHz spectrum and preclude me from deploying conventional LTE on anything but 800 and 1900?

Very slightly more, unfortunately. Here's a simple question... How will this work in conjunction with more broad-reaching LTE solutions? The system as presented would work well in a city, but not in the middle of nowhere. I live in a state with large rural areas which are covered by sites spaced at the limits of their radio technologies. I see lots of areas with 5-10 mile site spacing with 300-400' antenna heights, whose radios are running at their maximum possible design power. Some of these cells should be split due to changes in capacity requirement, but it rarely happens. This leads to LTE speeds of pretty much ether 25 Mbps or 5Mbps, with little in between. Either the cell is overloaded but not quite enough to be split, or it's just sitting there providing great coverage to the farmer's cattle and seeing 10-20 actual device connections per day. If this truly is compatible with conventional LTE technologies at the phone's end, how will it handle the handoff with conventional networks? I would hate to see a separate band required, but would hate even more to see a zone of alienation between the two LTE technologies to prevent interference. Even though your system is intended to leverage interference to its own benefit, I cannot see it being able to do so with that which is caused by neighboring conventional cell sites, as the signaling would not be precisely known. This could present some major spectrum issues, thereby substantially increasing operator expense. Frequency reuse is a headache now. I would hate for it to become a migraine.

And there has been some nice vaporware with his name on it. Like I said, I would like to see this work, and if it does, for someone to put it into service. It just feels too much like a Quixtar seminar to me, especially in how much is talking tells so little about what's really (or allegedly) going on. I wonder how many radios one will have to send to hit gold diamond whatever status.

I want 20 scopes/analyzers watching, spaced out around the locations. I want to make sure there isn't too much similarity in the signal.

King Cow.

I see 65-120 generally on LTE, 80-140 on EVDO EHRPD and about the same with Rev.A.

If this signifies the return of the multi-radio phone, I will be very happy.

Simple overloading.

I see nothing like that here. 1 below center rack looks like Sprint legacy.

I absolutely HATED Sprint's in-building CDMA performance the last time I spent a few days in GR. Even when I had good signal, it dropped calls badly and didn't take more than a move of a few feet to turn 3 bars into 1 or none. Totally awful. It seemed to have improved last time I was out there, which was about a year and a half ago, bUt I wasn't in as many places or there as long as about 4 or 5 years ago.

He could give a little bit of real information and just stay away from the sensitive parts. I don't expect a book on it. Enough content to fill an index card (unillustrated) would be nice.