steve_phillipps

<p>Good point Mihai, sorry I forgot it was a crop body, I use the 50mm on a D3. You're right, the 30mm 1.4 should be a good equivalent.<br>

Thing about 50mm f1.4s have always been that they are (relatively) cheap, small and optically excellent - what more could you want?<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Not sure I understand the question Jan? Bill's post was quite self-explanatory - if he set ISO400 and the shutter speed reads 1/250th sec he'll nudge it up to ISO1600 so it get 1/1000th sec. If the sun comes out and the shutter speed rockets up to 1/4000th sec he might knock it down to 400 or 800 again to reduce noise but keep 1/1000th sec. On the D3 you can even do this automatically with the Auto ISO setting.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Low light = primes. Go with a 50mm f1.4, either Nikon or Sigma. f1.4 is a whole 2 stops faster than f2.8, that is it's letting in 4x as much light. That's a LOT.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>Very little wrong with the AF-D in my experience. Well-made, optically excellent, always seems to focus pretty fast and accurate to me.<br>

IF this new one was a fair bit better at f1.4, or if the focussing was in a different league, and it didn't do anything less well than the D version then I'd be tempted, but I get the feeling that won't be the case.<br>

Look forward to more tests and will try to get them side by side myself if I can.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>In UK try <a href="http://www.ffordes.com">www.ffordes.com</a><br>

Steve</p>

<p>There does seem to be room, over where the focus scale is (it would hide that of course but that's OK).<br>

Can't use the Canon as there's no way to adjust aperture - for Nikon there is an adapter that has a lever to control G lenses. Here's the 400 2.8 on a vid cam.<br />Steve</p>

<div></div>

<p>I'm mounting it on a broadcast video camera via a lens adapter though, which means two things - firstly much greater magnification, secondly a not-perfect fit with the adapter which means it moves about a bit in the mount, so needs another anchor point.<br>

The Canon collar looks just right, but be interested to know for sure as it'll be a special order item and non-returnable.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Anyone know if the lens collar for the Canon 100 macro http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-Canon-Tripod-Mount-Ring-D-for-EF-100mm-f-2-8L-MACRO-IS-USM/p1033254?cm_mmc=GoogleBase-_-Tripods-and-Monopods-_-Tripod-Accessories-_-Canon-Tripod-Mount-Ring-D-for-EF-100mm-f-2-8L-MACRO-IS-USM_1033254 will fit the Nikon 105 vr micro? It looks about the right dimensions.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I bet it'd be a lot better.<br>

I snipped the little lever off a TC14E to put on MF lenses and it worked fine and was easy to do. The TC20EIII is quite pricey to try though I guess.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I think you add Leica to that list?<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>I'd second what Edward Ingold said.<br>

One reason a lot of serious shooters switched or switched back to Nikon - the D3! This really seemed to put them back in the game, and is arguably still the sweetest camera out there (I'll have to put IMHO, even though it's a FACT! lol)<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>As always depends on how much you want to spend!<br>

The 14-24 has had almost universal rave reviews, most users being amazed at just how good it is. Presumably an excellent landscape lens too.<br>

Have you looked at the Zeiss primes? The 21mm is apparently incredible, the 28mm f2, 35mm f2, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 all get great write-ups too.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>No worries - my explanation was not as detailed as yours! Like you, I find it invaluable once you get used to it, even for slow work, portraiture etc., it just makes recomposing so much easier.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p><em>"Something that wasn't mentioned..."</em></p>

<p><em>I mentioned it in the first post Ty, you obviously didn't scroll up far enough!</em><br>

<em>Steve</em><br>

<em><br /></em></p>

<p>This gives a good rundown of the D700 AF settings http://www.digitalartandmore.com/page2/page60/page60.html<br>

As do many other places.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Sounds like it'll be fantastic! I understand your nervousness, wanting to do your best.<br>

If you can get it right I assume the D700 AF system is a lot better than the D80, and certainly the image quality will be way above it, though your 70-200 will maybe be a little short for some shots due to the lack of crop on the D700.<br>

I suppose this is all down to the AF settings. I use 21 Points, Continuous, Release + Focus, Single Point using the central focus point, AF Lock On to Short or Off. Like a lot of others I also set it up so the button on the back does the focussing and not the shutter button.<br>

It's very tricky using something you're not familiar with, it just needs lots of trial and error.<br>

Hope you get more feedback here too. Best of luck.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Thanks. So sounds like might be most useful as an addition to the jpeg route, for those who'd like an image as ready as possible straight from the camera maybe.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Surely though Aperture is just reading pixel luminance levels, it's not editing, just reading what is there. Surely the luminance of the pixel is what it is, there's no interpretation needed. I can't understand why there would be a compatibility problem, unless it's to do with the creation of the jpegs as it doesn't happen in RAW.<br /> The other thing I noticed in quick tests is that the D Lighting shot seems routinely slightly less sharp than the non-D Lighting one.<br /> Steve</p>

<p>Decided to have a play with Active D Lighting on the D3.<br>

Banged off a couple of identical shots with and without it. Brought them into Aperture and immediately you can see that it's worked, in that the highlight areas are preserved, where they are burnt out on the shot without D Lighting. Good.<br>

Funny thing is though that when I select "Highlight Hot and Cold Areas" in the Aperture menu (this as the name suggests shows burnt out highlight areas and crushed blacks, at least I assume that's what it does!) On the shots with D Lighting it shows area burnt out while on the ones without those same areas don't show as burnt out - even though to the eye it's the reverse!<br>

Any idea why this would be? Seems only to do it when shooting jpegs.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>You were out alone by the look of it Sergio! I can't help either, didn't shoot anything that weekend - too busy watching the World Cup I suppose (and didn't get the job of shooting it!)<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>I think, as has been discussed in other threads, that they are so comparable in terms of quality and range, in lenses and bodies, from amateur to pro, that it's entirely, 100% down to personal preference/past experience/current compatible equipment. There really is absolutely nothing in it.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Thread title "All Canon lenses are better than Nikon"<br>

All good fun!<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WjdU</p>

<p>Can't you just explain it to me? Does it work in a totally different way to all the other NR software?<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>Don't see how it can work without sharpness loss. Is there not a sliding scale where you can adjust how strong you want the noise reduction to be? Any program I've seen has had a trade off between the amount of NR and a loss of sharpness.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Thanks Bjorn, I'll remortgage my house!<br />Steve</p>