leif_goodwin8

<p>From first hand experience I can recommend Benbo/Uniloc and the Gitzo Explorer. The Gitzo is the better made tripod, lighter and more suited for general use, but expensive.</p>

<p>The answer to the question is no.<br>

The Saturday Telegraph is a major newpaper in the UK. There is a pullout section on gardening. Quite often the photo on the front - A3 size - is very very poor. One recently had a bee on a flower. The head and eyes were out of focus. The backside was in focus. I would have binned the photo. Go figure!</p>

<p>I think it has a nice clean layout, no horrible waiting while something loads, easy to use. My only suggestion is to make the sample images bigger.</p>

<p>I suggest you mount the camera and lens on a good tripod, use a cable release and mirror lock up, and take a series of test photos of a flat subject such as a brick wall. Focus manually to eliminate AF errors. Examine the photos. If they are soft, the lens is suspect. If they are sharp, it's your technique.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1836730">William Kahn</a> "Well, the answer you get here will be "No!" The answer you get on the Nikon forum will be "Yes!"<br>

Since I am a Nikon user, but on this forum, it looks like I must say no. Actually, I suspect the cause is user error e.g. too slow shutter speeds, or poor focus.</p>

<p>Chad: The wireless comms is via IR. Just in case you did not realise, when you configure the commander mode via the camera menu, you can disable the built in flash, and yet still have it control the SB200 units. Set the built in power to "-". It will still fire, but the power will be reduced. The Nikon web site has product manuals and it is possible the R1 manual has been updated. Also check the D90 manual.</p>

<p>According to the user manual you can only do so using the SU800 or SB800 flash, and of course the SB900 which was not available when I bought an R1. Were you to use a non CLS compatible camera, then you could use the SU800 connected to the SB200 flashes via cables.</p>

<p>You might think they would allow direct control of the flash via cables from the camera to the SB200 units but clearly they thought for whatever reason, maybe technical, that it was not worth doing.</p>

<p>Just to add that Matthew's comments on working distance are the reason I recommend the 105mm over the 60mm. The 60mm can be used with good results, but sometimes you end up very close to the insect.</p>

<p>I think you need at least 100mm, and unless you use flash, a good tripod and head. With flash, the 105mm is best and it is not too heavy.</p>

<p>Here is an example using natural light and a 200mm micro lens:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/Other%20Insects/_DSC1425%20Fly%20crop.jpg" alt="Fly" width="800" height="550" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Simon: Thanks. BTW the sharpness is pretty good at the pixel level, though you can't tell from such small images.</p>

<p>Okay, I can't for the life of me understand how to post links on this site so just copy and paste into a browser:</p>

<p>http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/Dragonflies/_DSC4275%20Male%20Hairy%20Dragonfly.html<br>

http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/Dragonflies/_DSC4421%20Female%20Black%20Tailed%20Skimmer.html</p>

<p>If I have done the links correctly, here's two examples:<br>

<img src="http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/Dragonflies/_DSC4275%20Male%20Hairy%20Dragonfly.html" alt="Male Hairy Dragonfly" /><br>

<img src="http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/Dragonflies/_DSC4421%20Female%20Black%20Tailed%20Skimmer.html" alt="Black Tailed Skimmer Dragonfly" /></p>

 

<p>The Sigma 400m F5.6 APO Macro is the best in the series, and not expensive on FleaBay. I can point you to some example images if needed. I think the worst Sigma incompatibilites are with Canon because all the camera-lens signalling is electronic.</p>

<p>A lens will transmit near UV although special lenses are required if you want to get further into the UV spectrum. But on most digital cameas the cover plate in front of the sensor will filter both UV and IR unless you have the camera adapted. I think older cameras such as the D70 allowed through more non visible light.<br>

I think you need to find out why your dad wants a UV filter. If it is for protection, then see the other thread not far down the forum from this one.</p>

<p>There is no point to a UV filter as the glass plate in front of the sensor will filter out both IR and UV. In fact they are not a good idea as they lower the lens transmission and those I have seen (including a Leica filter) have a distinct colour cast. Good quality clear filters transmit as good as 100% of the incident light. For many (all?) lenses Nikon recommend using an NC filter. Canon protect filters are also good quality and (in the UK) considerably cheaper. I see no image degradation with Canon protect filters though there is always the danger of increased susceptibility to flare in certain situations.</p>

<p>"In other words, assuming that the Sony and the Nikon have the same identical sensor"<br>

The A700 and D300 have 'the same sensor' and yet the D300 performs much better at high ISO. The truth is that t he sensor is not the same, and Nikon added Nikon specific features to the sensor and the DSP pipeline . G iven information from Ellis, the D3x and A900 sensors are related, but we will probably never know quite who did what.<br>

There are a lot of people dissing the D3x without having used it. We need to w ait for thorough tests. Pricewise, the camera is priced according to what Nikon thinks users are prepared to pay. If no -one bites, the price will fall.</p>

<p>Ellis: I was not for one minute questioning your integrity, merely wondering if you based your conclusion on the quoted text alone. Anyway, thanks for the information.<br>

So are you saying that Sony had no input? And do you have any explanation for why the Sony A900 and Nikon D3x sensors share so many similarities such as pixel count and other details? I think there are architectural similarities. Not that it is that important ... :)</p>

<p>You say the following:</p>

<p>"While Sony is doing the fabrication  the D3X CMOS sensor is completely designed and engineered by Nikon."</p>

<p>But the quotation you give says:</p>

<p>"<em><strong>The Nikon D3X’s 24.5-megapixel FX-format (35.9 x 24.0mm) CMOS sensor was developed expressly for the D3X in accordance with Nikon’s stringent engineering requirements and performance standards, with final production executed by Sony. "</strong> </em></p>

<p>That does not say what you said, so what is your source for the D3x sensor being "completely designed and engineered by Nikon"? Like many cars, the A900 and D3x sensors could well be the same basic pattern, but the D3x version has been modified to suit Nikon requirements hence  they can say "<em><strong>developed expressly for the D3X in accordance with ...". </strong> </em> and they are not lying.<br>

But this arguing is no more than weeing in the wind.<br>

The only way to know how good the D3x sensor is will be through testing. B. Rorslett will have one and hopefully will report his findings on the Nikon Gear web site. I think he can be trusted to give a reliable and honest account.</p>

 

Either they can't make many of them, or someone in marketing saw the price of MF backs, and got greedy. The Canon 1Ds3 was able to maintain a high price as there was no competition. I guess we will find out how it sells.

Seems expensive to me for an extra 12MP. Maybe each sensor pit is individually hand crafted and signed by the employee concerned?

"I have a few friends who shoot with the 50D & one comment from one of the best photographers with that camera is that one of his favorite Canon lenses is no longer usable - - the 50D shows all the problems that lens has."

 

As far as pixel density goes, the results will be just as good at a given print size.

There's more to a camera than small differences in the sensor, as measured by some online site. Auto-focus, mirror-lock-up, durability and robustness, operation with MF lenses, frames per second, flash sync speed, and I am sure there are more.

"I'll trust Rockwell on the subject on image quality about the same time I start trusting in the existence of Santa Claus. "

 

Sadly Rockwell exists.

 

You've had sensible advice, but you might also want to think about the lifetime of a CD/DVD, which apparently can vary greatly between brands.

Excellent. No problem.

Why not give these people a call:

 

http://www.camtechuk.com/shop/shop-list/product-list.php?manufac=nikon

 

They have two used but mint at very reasonable prices. You also get a UK warranty. I recently bought a used micro lens from Camtech. It was described as mint, and it was immaculate, with no signs of wear whatsoever. Make sure you ask him if the cameras have any signs of wear just in case, but I doubt it.

The difference in perceived sharpness in the first two images in the original post is purely a question of unsharp mask. I took each image in turn, pasted it into a new Photoshop CS2 image. Then I selected the left hand side (the Nikon scan) and applied a light unsharp mask. Low and behold the Nikon and Imacon images were indistinguishable. In fact they were so similar that they both showed the same sharpening artifacts. Proof positive that the Imacon is applying more unsharp mask than the Nikon.

 

I have heard that the Imacon are not the best pro scanners though I have no first hand experience so that might be twaddle.

 

Now maybe if you took the Nikon image and upsampled to 8000 DPI then compared the two images, there might be a difference, but I suspect not. Perhaps the real test is to photograph parts of the image with a compound microscope to determine whether or not there really is more detail to scrape off the emulsion i.e. is the scanner or the film the limiting factor.