mbwood

<p>There's something fishy here, the two images are exactly the same, not a leaf moves between them nor does a single pixel shift when comparing the two. What's with that? It would be impossible to frame the shots from two different cameras with different lenses etc. exactly the same without any change in distortion, slightly different focal length lenses, etc. ????</p>

<p>I have had a D7000 for three weeks and mine is good with no lit pixels.<br>

The camera is great btw, more features than any other Nikon I have used.</p>

<p>I've seen this too and often wondered the same thing. My conclusion is that someone told someone that was the best way to use a flash so people just do it without thinking because so and so told them ...</p>

<p>I would recommend a tripod with a cable release. <br>

And a good sense of composition.</p>

<p> This is an interesting thread. <br>

Regarding lens sharpness there is the theoretical and the actual. Theoretically a lens is sharpest at its wide open aperture, but practically, for the lenses we are talking about, it doesn't work that way. Sharpness is also a factor of sensor density with digital. i.e. the more dense a sensor is the smaller the "circle of confusion" and the more critical things like focus, motion blur and lens quality becomes. <br>

In fact at any aperture the focal plane is thin, stopping down the lens increases the apparent depth of field but again that is dependent on the density of the sensor. Here is an interesting link that illustrates this: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm Note that if you reduce the circle of confusion the focal plane or "in focus" segment gets smaller. I find the DOF indicator on the lens to be inaccurate with the D3x and I suppose those lines would work with film but not with all digital cameras. <br>

Generally 2-3 stops down from wide open will yield the sharpest image but it's not totally reliable to use that rule of thumb. The best way to tell is to make some simple tests yourself with your lenses. <br>

You can check out some of the popular lens testing web sites too. They will give some indication of optimal aperture for a specific lens on a specific camera but this is only an indication and you may find your own results to be different. Check out these links: http://photozone.de/Reviews/overview - http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php<br>

Happy shooting !</p>

<p>If color accuracy is critical to the job at hand then a custom WB is required. <br>

If you are processing in Lightroom or Aperture then there is always the option of selecting "incandecent" WB and bypassing the Auto setting. Also these programs will only approximate the auto WB setting that the camera has embedded. Lightroom is the worst at this. I always select "Camera Standard" in LR when importing files to bypass the auto WB setting imposed by Lightroom. <br>

If you do decide to use a reference card, I suggest using grey instead of white for the balance. I use the WiBal cards and they work well. Also it's important that the camera is set as close to base ISO as possible for the best color accuracy.<br>

My experience with the Nano coated lenses are that they generally have a nicer look than others in the Nikon range.</p>

<p>I have used the 14N and (Nx) extensively since it was released. IMO many of my best shots were taken with that camera. OK it's got a bit of a learning curve and really only shines at base ISO (160) but it is very capable in it's range. I also used and own(ed) the Nikon D100, D90, D2x, D3 and D3x. I can honestly say that only the D3x clearly has better IQ at base ISO. The Kodak is clunky by comparison to any of those cameras but that's not such a big deal when you see the prints it is capable of making. </p>

<p>I have used the Zeiss 50mm ƒ1.4 on the D60 which, I believe, has the same metering issues as the D5000. The lens works fine except that you have to meter manually, and of course you have to focus manually. The metering is not such a big deal as you can estimate the first exposure and then use the histogram for corrections. Focusing is fairly straightforward too and if you have done manual focusing or are used to it then it's no biggie either. Optically the lens is awesome and I use it on all of my Nikon bodies up to the D3x with great results. If you are at all daunted by Manual exposure and Focus then it makes more sense to go with the Nikkor but for that little extra resolution and color the Zeiss is great !!</p>

<p>

<p >Those spots are caused by dust on your sensors AA filter. They are not normally in focus but when you stop down to ƒ32 they appear with more defined edges. If you take a picture of a light colored wall at an open aperture you will likely see spots that are much less defined but when the lens is stopped down they become much more visible. The simple way to eliminate the spots is to clean your sensor. </p>

</p>

<p>I also have the D90 and it's a fun camera, hard to compare to the Kodak. The Kodak has a higher pixel count and bigger pixels too so it's less likely to be lens challenged than the D90. D90 is also capable of nice images but perhaps not with the same sharpness of the Kodak in good lighting conditions. D90 is far more versatile with usable ISO up to 800-1600 where as the Kodak is limited to 400 and even that is a stretch. If you want a camera that you can just pick up and go the d90 is better by a mile. The kodak is capable of more detail but is harder to use and much slower overall. <br>

Michael Wood</p>

<p>I have used this camera extensively in the 14N and Nx versions. The camera is a bit fussy by modern standards but is able to deliver very high quality images with some effort in post processing. Generally it needs to be used at the lowest ISO setting and performs best with Kodak software for conversion from Raw though it works ok with Lightroom. The fact that it doesn't have an AA filter helps the overall resolution but brings some artifacts with certain types of images. High contrast fine lines can cause problems and for that you might want to try the different settings in your conversion software. The noise reduction setting in Kodak software works best at expert level instead of the default. All in all the camera can produce outstanding images in good light with practice and effort in post.<br>

Michael Wood</p>

<p>I have seen exactly the same behavior with files from D3, D2x and D90. I have asked my photog friends about this and it seems to be a Nikon only problem. IMO the image that you see when the file first appears is the built in preview (which often looks very good to my eye) then the Adobe concept kicks in, when the whole file loads, often looking pinkish and with lower contrast in the midrange. In my experience it doesn't make much difference to use manual WB or Auto. I have found that this problem does not exist with Aperture nor with NX2. It's a bit of a shame because the added work to get the picture to look right takes considerable time. <br>

Michael Wood</p>