Jump to content

sam_hunt

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    46

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by sam_hunt

    D600 - anyone experienced these problems? (Not a dust issue)

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I have bought twelve new Nikon pro cameras since 1979 and never had a mechanical or optical fault in one yet. The only thing I can say that wasn't 100% was the ribbed rubber insert on the front of the DP12 finder on my F2AS didn't have the ribs parallel to the edge; it had been cut at a slight angle. Also, on a new F3 the viewfinder showed a very slight bump on the edge at the bottom from the metal frame template. Neither of these things affected the use of the cameras but were strangely annoying at the time.</p>

    <p> </p>

    D3 vs D800

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I find the main advantage in my D800E over my D3 is in the ability to crop aggresively if needed and still have a very useable image. The dymanic range is far better in the D800 although I haven't found the high ISO to be markedly superior.<br /> <br>

    The downside for me of the D800 is the small battery and ergonomics of the body. I much prefer the feel of the D3 and I have small hands. It's more rugged and I find it faster in use and I don't mean FPS.<br /> <br>

    I couldn't care less about the video. Don't particular like the pop up flash too, which I feel cheapens the camera and makes it more vunerable to water entry.</p>

    Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG focus issue on D800E

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>Sam, glad to hear that AF tuning works for you. IMO too many variances in testing targets. I find most AF issues occur at longer distances and don't value testing close up. The sharpness of a lens is very important, but I will not buy one over another just for that. Maybe if they improve on software auto tuning which, when I last checked was being fine tuned itself :-) I might investigate it further. Thanks.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Van, I always test lenses for AF at longer distances as well close up. Currently none of my lenses need any tuning as they're all spot on as they're meant to be. I do think some people can get a little over enthusiastic about using AF fine tune when it's not necessary.</p>

    <p>Personally, I'm quite happy using Zeiss MF lenses and in many cases find they're more easier to focus quickly than using an AF lens and moving the focus point around. Of course an AF lens can be manually focused as well and I often do use them this way although most are not particularly smooth in operation compared to a dedicated MF lens.</p>

    <p>I suppose the Sigma USB dock will be an expensive accessory.</p>

     

    Left handed F100 - Ken Rockwell's Pointless Deception

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <p ><a name="00bS9y"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4802905">Andy L</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 15, 2013; 07:11 p.m.</p>

     

    <blockquote>

    <p>This isn't an example of Ken Rockwell being a "piece of [stuff]." It's an example of him f***ing with you. It worked.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Yes, he's got us talking about him yet again.</p>

     

    Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG focus issue on D800E

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p><em>"Meanwhile, I don't know why everyone is so bent on razor cutting sharpness. There's more to a quality lens, ie. color rendition, weather proofing, warranty, resale, CA, Bokeh, speed of focus, filter size, etc etc."</em></p>

    <p>Of course there is more to a lens than,<em> "razor cutting sharpness". </em>However, it is one of the most desirable attributes of a lens, in fact, probably the most desirable attribute if we are honest about it.</p>

    <p><em>"Anyway, my 70-200 VRII is the sharpest of the bunch, can you believe, and I have the 200 f/2."</em></p>

    <p>It's reasonably well known that the 200 f/2 can often have back focus issues and because it's so sharp anyway it largely goes undetected until an AF fine tune adjustment is done and wow! I have a very sharp copy of the 70-200 VR II especially at 200mm close up but in no way does it compare to my 200 f/2 VR II in that regard.</p>

    <p>AF fine tuning is a Godsend for those lenses that need it. The various warnings about not using it are probably based on the knowledge that many people seem to make a mess of it. There is even a misleading tutorial on YouTube that gets it wrong. It's not rocket science and it's there for a reason otherwise Nikon (and Canon with their version) would'nt have put it there. A few years back on an extended assignment my D3 was front focusing after a bad knock and the AF fine tune enabled me to still use the camera by setting the default value to +17. </p>

    <p> </p>

    Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG focus issue on D800E

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I use my D800E with the new Sigma 35 f/1.4 and the AF works perfectly at all distances. The left and right AF points focus accurately too. The lens is extremely sharp at f/1.4 in the centre and pretty good on the edges. It's razor sharp at f/4 to f/8. It's superior to my Zeiss 35/2, which I'm currently in the process of selling and that lens is better optically than the Nikon 35 f/1.4 I used to own. In fact, my Sigma 35 f/1.4 is almost on par with my Nikon 200 f/2 VR II at f/4.</p>

    Damaged Lens / What would you do?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>$700 is not bad. My 24-70 was $1,100 to repair. It still took sharp pics but the zoom was very hard to turn. This was after it dropped about 2 feet. Household insurance paid for my repair as it was listed.<br>

    Don't sell your lens damaged as you'll lose too much on it.</p>

    <p> </p>

    Torn between D600 and D800

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I have always had Nikon pro bodies but this time I bought the D800e and use it for sports and it's perfectly fine. Don't believe those that tell you it's only a studio or landscape camera, they obviously haven't used one. I have only used my D3 once since I bought the D800e. </p>

    <p> </p>

    High End Bodies. Why did you buy one?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I really enjoyed using my D3 for the last four years. Never missed a beat, solid and reliable. However, I replaced it with a D800E and after some initial frustration of getting used to a smaller body I now wouldn't go back to the larger pro body cameras. I have very small hands so find the D800E comfortable. I don't need high frame rates or a large buffer and find the cropping ability amazing. I don't like the fact that the D800 has an in built flash as this is a potential place for water entry if caught in the rain.</p>

    Nikon 28 f2.8 AIS vs others

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>The 28 f/2.8 AIs is a terrific lens for close up work and out to medium distances. It's not so great at infinity. I haven't tried my one on my D800E but I'll get around to it. It was razor sharp on my D3, especially close-up. Unlike a lot of the earlier Nikkor lenses the AIs 28 f/2.8 has a different optical configuration to the AI.</p>

    200-400mm

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p ><a name="00b5MZ"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 02, 2012; 06:10 a.m.</p>

     

    <p>"All Nikon big lenses from the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S and above come with a leather/nylon lens cap with draw strings as Elliot's link points to."<br>

    It starts with the 200 f/2 and above.</p>

    <p> </p>

     

    Is a faster lens sharper than a slower lens?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>The super telephoto lenses such as the 200 f/2, 300/2.8 400 f/2.8 etc. are designed to be at their sharpest at about one stop down and are all superbly sharp wide open. They're designed to be used at their maximum aperture or close to it. These lenses redefine sharpness and speed but they cost and arm and a leg.</p>

    <p> </p>

    Which lens to keep: 200mm/f2 vs. 300mm/f2.8

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I have the 200 f/2 VR II version. I haven't used the previous version. I would suggest that you buy the earlier version if you can find one at a good price. While I'm delighted with the VR II, I don't think, from what I've seen on the web at least, there is much of a difference if any between the IQ of both lenses. It's an absolutely stunning lens and very sharp. I sold my 70-200 VR II a few days after aquiring the 200 f/2 VR II. There's just no comparison IQ wise between the two.<br>

    I use mine wide open 90% of the time and the bokeh and 3D effect of the lens at that aperture is amazing. Even an ordinary shot looks good because the background just melts into a kind of impressionistic blurr.</p>

    <p> </p>

×
×
  • Create New...