james_scholz

<p>Fisheye lenses are obviously different from more conventional lenses that are designed to render straight lines straight, but taking that in consideration they can perform quite well. I have used my 16 less then my other lenses but when I want that special look it does a good job. Mine gives good center performance at most all f stops but the edges are best at f8. A few years ago I shot an Italian Cathedral interior with the lens on my 24 meg D3x and later an 8x12 foot print was made for the lobby of a local business. I have received a number of compliments on the image and based on that would not hesitate to recommend the lens.</p>

<p>I shoot architecture for a living. I used the Nikon 14-24 for several years but kept having flair problems and somewhat soft corners. After having to reshoot an interior job with lots of windows at night to deal with the flair I bit the bullet and bought the Zeiss 15. After processing the first job I never looked back, the Zeiss was that good. Now the Nikon sits on the shelf as a backup if necessary.</p>

<p>Andrew,<br> I have been shooting my two Nikon D810's along side my older D800e for he past month, and have made approximately 100 20x30 inch prints from the new cameras. I always shoot RAW and 14 bit lossless compressed files and process all of them in Photoshop. Comparing the prints from the new cameras with ones from the D800e as far as high ISO performance goes I see no difference in the prints. Maybe someone could see some noise differences at 100% but once you make a print they seem the same to me. I have shot everything from weddings to Alaskan wildlife and am quite happy with noise and grain from either.</p> <p>However there are a lot of improvements in the D810 that really help me to make a living from photography. So much so I am thinking of selling off my older cameras.</p> <p>A lot of my work is for architectural firms so I shoot wide angle and pc lenses. Having a sharp live view is huge toward getting my Nikon 12-24 and My Zeiss 15mm in precise focus. Some say these lenses do not preform well, but I find that when the image doesn't look right it is always sloppy focus on my part. The same for my pc lenses. The split screen is just frosting on the cake.</p> <p>Electronic front shutter is another sharpness wizard. I did test my 400 2.8 and my 200-400 with that enabled and without and there is a very noticable difference. Just lock those long lenses down tight on a sturdy tripod and be prepared to see detail you never knew was there.</p> <p>ISO 64 can make all the difference in wedding shots outdoors with flash fill. You can use 1 f stop wider lens settings and fade out those ugly background details. Also the detail you can pull out of the shadows while still keeping the wedding gown from blowing out is amazing.</p> <p>The quiet shutter does not make the chruch reverbrate with camera noise during the ceremony as well.</p> <p>I am sure there are other features of the new camera that are more important to others but these are the ones that immediately come to mind for my work.</p> <p> </p>

<p>My pack is the Redwing P2. In it I carry my metal field camera and large focus cloth in the bottom compartment, and two large lenses in the top compartment. I could fit 3 lenses if they were a bit smaller. In the back compartment I can carry 4 film holders, and in a side compartment I have my compendium bellows, focus loupe, etc. With that amount of gear and a sturdy tripod I am good to go most anywhere my 70 old legs will take me, and they have taken me to a lot of beautiful remote places.</p>

<p>Over the years I have carried my Toyo 8x10 field camera in a variety of large backpacks, but about 5 years ago purchased a Kelty redwing from photobackpacker.com and could not have been happier. The fit, protection, and comfort of that pack is the best ever. If I needed another I would order it tomorrow.</p>