yeux tortu

<p>Micro 4/3 is wonderful format for standard and telephoto focal lengths. <br>

EPL1 and Lumix 20 1.7 is a super lightweight combo and that lens is about as sharp as the best Nikkors out there. I like the oly body but so far have preferred the panasonic glass. I was dumbfounded by the images that this combo produces, I must admit that I was a Nikon and Leica snob. <br>

This mount also allows me to mount my Nikkor MF lenses and my Leica glass. <br>

Image quality is as good as my D300 up to ISO 1600.<br>

If you like rangefinder handling and speed of operation then micro 4/3 is great. If you need fast autofocus stick to the D300.</p>

<p>All wrong.<br>

Get an M9 and valium for your subjects so they will hold still.</p>

<p>The D3X autofocuses better<br>

Medium Format kills FF 35mm in image quality<br>

I guess it depends on what "Pros" need<br>

I love my M6 and Summicron for fondle factor, but would not rely on it for maximum resolution prints or for PJ work</p>

<p>My 85 1.8 AF D is pretty fast focusing for indoor sports.</p>

<p>Cron 50<br>

Planar 50 1.7<br>

Nikkor would be AIS 50 1.2</p>

<p>My experience is the 50 1.4 is as sharp at 2.0 as the 17mm zoom on the long end at 2.8. 1 stop is important. So if sharpness and 1 stop is important... <br>

However, in my experience the 17mm zoom is more saturated/contrasty and has more pop at 2.8 to 5.6.<br>

When it comes to the 24 to 70, in my opinion, the zoom blows away the prime as to sharpness, image saturation pop etc...<br>

In terms of weight, I prefer the FOV of a 35mm prime- so as a light weight walk around lens I do not use the 50 1.4. On a full frame some people like the 50 mm as a light alternative to the monster zooms, but since you have a dx rig you may want to look at the 35 mm primes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Weighted MTF for 180 mm: f2,8</strong> 0,75, <strong>f4</strong> 0,81, <strong>f8</strong> 0,83<br>

<strong>Weighted MTF for 200 mm: f2,8</strong> 0,75, <strong>f4</strong> 0,78, <strong>f8</strong> 0,82<br>

These numbers kind of match my field experiences as well. The AIS is about half the weight.</p>

<p>I sold mine last week, pristine, for 569. The premium was for the mint condition which is harder to find for this lens in the past several years. I love MF lenses so using this version was very enjoyable. I have used all the 70/80 to 200 mm 2.8 zooms and the ED AIS was sharper and more contrasty in my experience at the equivalnet focal length. For landscapes MF would be fine.</p>

Bag 1: Event bag- paying customer;

Tamrac velocity 9 bag,

D300,

D700 (pretty soon),

SB 800,

24 - 70,

70 - 200 VR,

tc - 20 e

 

Bag 2: the walk around bag;

LL Bean Fanny Pack,

35 2,

18 - 135,

SB 400,

D 300 from bag 1.

 

Bag 3: Always with me bag;

Walmart $5 p&s bag,

GX 100.

Thank you for all the great responses.

 

Nikon sure is making it harder these past 10 months with their incredible range of product offerings.

For those of you who have actually used these cameras for awhile for events/wedding, just how much difference is

there in actual use and results between the sensors. Assuming correct exposure are you seeing a significant

difference in dynamic range and detail above iso 800. I have googled this forum and have found a lot of technical

discussion and comparison of samples..., but would like to have a real world opinion from actual shooters who have

used both of these cameras extensively. I have read the hype, but is it real? I have seen the websites and low res

samples on a monitor, but have never seen actual prints. I would appreciate feedback from folks who have made

prints from both.

 

I am on the list for D700 and am willing to pay for higher IQ for available light, but need to hear that the extra 1400 is

going to make a "noticeable" difference for the money. I have all FX lenses and am not worried about losing the DX

reach nor that excited about true wide angle on FX. My decision is being driven only by IQ of results and I am

waivering on whether 1 stop makes a difference. Now if I hear 2 stops....

D700 and D300 have same output of 12 megapixel. I understand that these pixels are on different size sensors so that per mm there are

more pixels on the D300. Does this theoretically mean that the detail is greater due to finer digital grain?

Still Chilly -> Still

Hope picture posts this time<div></div>

Still Chilly

Granite Everywhere<div></div>

Bessa- That M4 is in fact a Cosina posing as a Leica

Coarse<div></div>

Vigil<div></div>

This lens is superb on D300. Light weight, and the lens is sharp and contrasty even wide

open.

gx 100 with 28/35 mini viewfinder always in my pocket

You preselect spot and look for green focus indicator to light when focus is achieved.

Great lens. Plenty sharp wide open.

85 1.4 is much sharper

The 35 IQ is way better than the 18-200 zoom at f4.

sell the 18-70, keep the 55-200,use the 18-200 money and buy the 17-55 2.8