walterh

August 24, 2017

Shun thanks for the info. Like you I do not care too much about the high pixel count but I was waiting a long time for the better AF module. My D800 is just not good enough in that respect.

But let us see how the sensor performs in low light, perhaps the smallish pixels are not so bad after all.

The question is of course how to get the high resolution out of the camera that is apparently capable outside of a studio and without a heavy tripod. Would also be interesting which of the current Nikon and third party lenses can supply adequate resolution. My Zeiss Planar 100 mm macro may be able to but the list may be short..

July 25, 2017

Perhaps Nikon is just a bit shy and will give more details step by step.

Perhaps it is a mirrorless body and we shall be made used to it in small doses. :-)

December 12, 2016

By the way: AF is not really needed for most macro work, especially for objects that cannot walk or fly away.

I extend out the lens as far as needed to get the required reproduction factor (or "magnification").

That determines the focus distance.

To focus precisely I move slightly back or forward for best focus and shoot.

Mostly faster and simpler than AF.

Cheers

Walter

December 12, 2016

Amazon UK and Amazon.de have special offers of new D750 at present with a bit higher price in the German market than in the UK.

Perhaps a sign of a new body?

It would not be the first time Nikon (or Canon) sold "refurbished" cameras that were actually new as far as one could tell to clear out stock.

Perhaps my hopes for a new updated body are just too high :-)

Cheers

Walter

August 29, 2016

Thanks for the fast response. Perhaps I try and rent a D500 and see what it will do for me. Or wait for a newer model. A few month wait would be OK. The fine tune setting probably was not it. When I saw the focus going off I pushed the focus button and focus seemed ok again. I had to do this every few frames at the slow series setting. I certainly could not complain about lack of contrast on this occasion :-)

PS: Sorry for the large image. 800 seemed so small :-)

August 29, 2016

Greetings.

Here is my problem:

I was happy with my combination of D3 and D800 in usage and image quality. However, due to age and health condition my D3 is getting too heavy for me, e.g. with my 70-200 f2.8 zoom but even more when several lenses are in the bag. Like I would shoot fast and tele-zoom with the D3 and wide angle with the D800.

Mostly my D800 fulfils my need but when it comes to action the AF of the D800 is not fast enough.

For example: Yesterday I was shooting aerobatic flight displays of model plains and I lost several shots in a series and often had to refocus in a series.

My be I get out of practice too much but my memory is that the D3 was always spot on when following planes 1) approaching or leaving and 2) following the subject when in addition moving sideways in the viewfinder.

Now small planes are quite fast and the demand is high on focus tracking.

I did not follow the Nikon model updates but heard that the D810 improved quite a bit on focus tracking so would i just need to update to an D810?

Updating my D3 to a D5 is not worth the money for my non commercial use also in view of the weight.

For landscape and macro the D800 is fine for me with a good tripod and selected lenses like my Zeiss 100mm F2.0 Planar ZF2.

As a second question in terms of low light high ISO performance is there any less heavy replacement for the D3?

I always shoot raw, and process in PS btw, so in camera noise removal is of no concern and all my lenses are FX format.

Any suggestion would be appreciated.

Thanks

Walter

April 8, 2014

I always liked and still use the 28mm F2.0 AIS for the way the images are rendered.

The lens has a certain personality that one can see in the images. :-)

Resolution and contrast are good enough for a D3 but not top notch for todays pro lenses.

Flare is well under control and including the sun in the frame gives pleasing results.

For me it is a small, fast, low profile lens that lets me go close to a face and still get a lot of the location included in the image.

I prefer it over the F2.8 that is not bad in any way but did not seem any special to me.

For fast action and need of AF I prefer the 24mm-70mm F2.8 zoom.

Cheers

Walter

February 6, 2014

Kryn it is likely you missed the focus using the 135mm F2.0 lens set the way you descibe it. Most users need to slightly offset the DF ring from neutral to get proper focus. (I have to do this on my similar 105mm F2.0 DF lens.)

If I read D800 I think high resolution. Then the Zeiss Macro Planar 100mm F2.0 is one of the best choices, especially since you say you shoot portrait. Shoot open or at 2.8 and be amazed. The good news is that you do not have to finetune AF :-)

The bad news is if this combination gives not highest image quality you have no excuse. At least that was my lesson to learn.

Use a tripod whenever applicable and take your time to nail the focus.

Cheers

Walter

February 7, 2012

First thing I would do with an AA-filter-less new Nikon D800 is to put on a Zeiss 100mm f2.0 Macro Planar ZF and shoot the hell out of it :-) That would show the limits of lens OR sensor.

Would be interesting also to see how the softness of the out of focus areas of this particular lens will be presented by the sensor, resolution is not everything but resolution plus superb rendering is, for me it is.

So please - someone send me a D800 for testing :-P

PS Certainly a number of Nikon lenses will be good enough for the new sensor :-) (Running for cover)

Cheers Shun and thanks for the info. (Re emerging in +-OK health)

September 8, 2011

I agree with Alan that the old 35-70mm is an excellent lens.

However there is a tendency to flair when shooting into light even if this is not a point source but a wide source of light.

In addition some of these lenses acquire some fogging of the lens that increases the flair considerably. this seems a widespread phenomenon.

If your lens is especially "clean" (like the one I own) than only the first part of my comment applies.

Knowing about the problem I tried to avoid it as much as possible and I personally used the 35-70mm f2.8 zoom for quite a while with good success before upgrading to the 24-70mm f2.8. Quite a positive upgrade in range but also quite a difference in price.

September 7, 2011

Artists are peculiar about correct colors :-)

Using some color reference card like the color passport from Xrite will be helpful. Unfortunately you will need to know a bit about color processing workflow but you will find information here in the appropriate fora.

Unless you shoot in a studio you will get colored light effects from light reflection from nearby walls and ceiling.

Exclude ambient light as much as possible. Two or four flashes are a cheap and good start.

The suggested use of pol filters is a good idea. Unfortunately cheap once are not color neutral. If you use a color reference card you can compensate most of this but still a good brand pol filter is helpful.

A cheap and slow old AI or AIS macro lens like 55mm AI Micro Nikkor f 3.5 or 2.8 for larger objects or 105 to 200mm f 4.0 lenses are a good and cheap choice.

If you can see the artwork again once you processed your images for saturation, brightness, contrast etc. then this is the way to go. Otherwise take some notes especially about saturation. This helped me a lot. But my memory may not be the best^^.

If your output medium is paper then you need to read a bit about print processing and get the printer profiles for final settings before printing. A calibrated monitor is really essential.

Of course for home use you can just go trial end error :-) Some painters have low expectation from photography that can save one. But do not rely on this.

September 6, 2011

The difference between 40mm and 35mm is there but it is small.

The fact that the 40mm lens is a macro lens has nothing to do with perspective distortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29

Different lens designs may have a larger impact in cases where the focal length changes with focusing e.g. internal focusing design or floating elements. This is more apparent in zoom lenses.

September 6, 2011

Shun we doubled. Now I see distortion at that range seems not perfect but quite ok.

And thanks for taking the extra effort to answer al burning questions before the final test :-)

September 6, 2011

The bokeh and rendering of the macro examples from above link are pretty. So far the only really positive aspect for me.

By the way: one reason to design short macro lenses is the need for a large opening angle to obtain high resolution at magnification (above 1:1). My bet is that it is not better in resolution or distortion than the old Micro Nikkor 55mm f3.5 or similar older designs. The fact that it is a G lens points to a more consumer use where such parameters are of minor importance.

September 5, 2011

Wouter I realize that it is a DX lens and that at infinity it will only cover DX format. However, typically (macro) lenses cover a much larger useful image circle when at 1:1 compared to focus at infinity. That is why I asked.

September 4, 2011

Michael and Robert - I wonder how resistant to high temperature fungi and the spores are. I know that a black lens in full sun in areas not too far from equator can get above 70°C. That might kill a high percentage of many fungal species.

The UV is probably pretty much blocked in most lenses by so much glass. The mentioned lens is not on the wish list of UV photographers as far as I know.And spores got a good UV protection.

Does anybody know any particular species in favor of growing in lenses?

September 4, 2011

Shun when I first heard about this lens I assumed it will be a design for near 1:1 macro but perhaps I got this wrong. At least 40mm points into this direction and it certainly looks like a dedicated macro lens.

Your comment about the coverage: does this apply to 1:1? I would think it should cover FF at that reproduction ratio.

F 2.8 is rather fast for a dedicated macro lens aimed at near 1:1. How is flatness of field?

Do I get the drift right that this lens may be rather optimized for low cost than for optical performance?

When you do the full test would you consider running an oldtimer 55mm f3.5 side by side? Perhaps not everybody might like the comparison but perhaps some specialists might appreciate this.

Anyway thanks for the first info. Hope I do not bug you too much :-)

Cheers

Walter

PS: Is there a manual aperture?

September 3, 2011

Rene just in case you later change your mind; with a little luck you can sell that lens for more than what you pay and split your profit with your friend (if it is in good condition).

September 3, 2011

This is a new version of "only Nikon software can get the best out of Nikon images".

Always fun to read but do not believe it.

Inside of NEF files pixel data are stored very similar to TIF files and almost anybody can read the image data.

August 31, 2011

Rodeo Joe I agree with you for close range shots.

For example I shoot a lot of cat kittens so my best lens for the job ist the 70mm-180mm Nikkor AF macro zoom (that is no longer produced).I certainly appreciate the possibility to use AF and to zoom. Did I mention these kittens move fast? ^^

For real Macro say close to 1:2 or 1:1 I use focus to set the reproduction ratio and focus by moving the camera with lens to or from the object. With some experience this works better for me than to focus first, then change distance again, refocus and so on. Also manual lenses tend to be more precise in focusing and usually the AF focus ring is not as convenient to use as a manual focus ring.

Of course this may be different for different people and their shooting habit. So perhaps a good advice is to try and find out what work best for you. Some dealers let you rent or borrow a lens or two.

August 30, 2011

"...but I will always need to take too much time to have objects focused well,..."

</blockquote>

Only practice and to know what you are doing will help, not a new lens.

A real macro lens will improve handling because you need no ring and do not have to reverse the lens. A real macro lens will also offer a bit of better resolution and offer a flat field of view. Getting a good book on macro photography will help a lot.

Perhaps someone who was recently in the market for a book can comment.

August 30, 2011

Panayotis that's interesting information. I wonder if that is the case for all cameras using NEF files or just this model or a few models. I never used ADL (with the exception of a quick test when it first was available). So I could not say. Perhaps one can create a camera profile with "ADL on" for Adobe Camera Raw and apply this during import of NEF files. That should compensate. I made a set of camera profiles for a few typical light situations like bright sunshine at noon or heavy rain etc. or for lenses with particular color casts. Of course the preparation and use of color profiles is an effort that not everybody needs or wants to go through.

August 29, 2011

"...be sure NOT to have Active D-Lightning ON when shooting, otherwise the NEF files will not open properly in those softwares."

</blockquote>

What is the meaning of not properly? Are you referring to in camera settings not being applied? ACR does not apply any in camera settings to NEF files including sharpening etc.

August 28, 2011

A lot is published. But If you use the D200 in difficult light and need to go to higher ISO like 1600 there is a world of difference between the D3 and probably even a little more with the D3s and the D200. And a world of difference is more to me than 0.5. stop :-)

I talk from experience and not from test data on the net.

Also when I need to recover highlights or push dark areas in D3 images I can do things that are simply very different from D200 images.

And NO! I will not trade my D3 with a D200 1:1 - but nice try :-P

Cheers

Walter

August 28, 2011

Ray made a good suggestion.

One reason for the endless discussions if Nikon software or PS and Adobe Camera Raw (or other brands) produce the "best" results are due to the fact that different people get a better grip at one or the other software. There is a lot to learn before you get to the limit of the particular software. At first the operator is the limit :-)

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by walterh