walterh

<p>The major drawback of the D200 for me was the high noise already noticeable at ISO 400 or in dark areas at ISO 200 and the limited dynamic range. (Both compared to today's cameras. At the time the D200 was a big step forward. )<br>

If this is not a problem for your application the D200 is a great camera.<br>

One excellent application for example could be macro photography with artificial light, just to name one.</p>

<p>It has been a while that I needed his support but years ago Ed Hamrick did answer my questions about a similar problem with a Nikon scanner fairly quickly. At the time he knew the Coolscan 4000 and the 9000 well. I just checked his website and there he still mentions email support.<br>

Cheers<br>

Walter</p>

<p>Sorry to mention this but there is no binding definition of any grading of the condition of used lenses. Even though most of us would consider mint as defined above - in case of a legal controversy you are up to the opinion of the court. This is the reason one gets best prices on ebay when items are well documented by detailed fotos.<br>

So best bet is go after the reputation of the dealer if you cannot inspect the item before you buy.<br>

For this point such threads are quite useful.<br>

BTW: My preferred mint is "After Eight" Don't know if this is sold under this name outside of Germany :-)</p>

<p>No sharpening but conversion to TIFF files does not make much sense to me.</p>

<p>You often loose some quality unless you apply at least a small amount of processing (including sharpening) in conversion from RAW to tiff. Sharpening tiff files after conversion is not the same as sharpening during conversion from RAW. (Also highlight recovery and adjusting dark areas / fill light as well as some filters like noise reduction.) This is the case for the current Adobe ACR plugin for PS as well as the last time I tried NX2 ( perhaps a year ago).<br>

Perhaps you can discuss this again with your agent.</p>

<p>Well are these examples so called 100% Crop?</p>

<p>I am not an expert in portrait. If I do a portrait it is of the "environmental" type. Your application may differ. So my comment is very subjective as it should be for the topic of portrait.</p>

<p>My taste is to use a lens that has the best rendition or call it bokeh and that matches the focal lemgth that you need for the occasion. Sharpness is an illusion , resolution is of benefit and an appealing rendition is what I want for a portrait. The focal length can be best at 28mm (FF) or go up to 300mm depending on the occasion. Lenses I liked for portrait were the 28mm F2.0 AIS Nikkor, several of the cheap 50mm Nikkors (not best but cheap), the 85mm Nikkor AIS or better the later AFD versions, and almost any of the 105mm f2.5 Nikkor later Gauss Type version AI(S) lenses. The 105 AF DC f2.0 lens is a beauty of a lens for portraits. For my taste the best portrait (and macro) - lens is the Zeiss Planar 100mm f2.0.<br>

The suggestion of such a diverse variety may not help you much but here you have it :-)<br>

To add to the confusion: A cheap F3 with a silver based film and a Zeiss 100mm F2.0 is something I want to try some day - time permitting.</p>

<p>The shot presented by <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4303235">Andrew Garrard</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 16, 2011; 09:35 a.m is what I expect from this lens.<br>

I am in hospital currently so I have no chance to take any test shots.Sorry.<br>

The "Uncrisp transition" is a good try but the letters seem blue on my monitor and the blue edges if these are CA are not well seen. Also I see no indication of fringes of different color on the other side. So hard to conclude much. I hope by now you do not feel like I am picking on you - just trying to nail down the effect.<br>

What happens if you try to correct CA in post processing?<br>

Cheers<br>

Walter</p>

<p> </p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3884164">Raghunath Rajaram</a> there seems to be a confusion what exactly you see on your samples.<br>

Before you use ! on a title make certain that you really know what you are complaining about :-)<br>

I know the subject can be confusing.</p>

<p>Try a test target with normal contrast or high contrast within the dynamic range of the sensor.<br>

If you exceed the dynamic range of the sensor all sorts of effects can happen that have nothing to do with CA (or at least will not show up under normal conditions within the dynamic range). Especially since we have no idea on the light and exposure conditions of the examples we can only wildly speculate what caused the effects you worry about.<br>

Use a subject including (not too narrow) lines with solid black and white edges.<br>

Then look at these edges.<br>

Your lens is a cheap lens but with typically excellent macro performance for the price.<br>

To get relevant better macro performance in this range of focal length you will need to spend a lot more money, e.g. for a Zeiss 100mm F 2.0 Macro Planar.<br>

Once you did the tests right you will be able to draw conclusions if the lens is good enough for what you want to use it for.</p>

<p>Robert with time someone will mention it for sure :-)</p>

<p>This is a nice lens with respect to both optics and mechanics. However, the Zeiss 100mm f2.0 beats it in the bokeh.</p>

<p>There is a certain difference in price (if one can find the Kiron, it took me 2 years to find one in excellent condition) and the solution for me was to own a Kiron and borrow the Zeiss if I need it :-P<br>

Once I run into the problem that I cannot borrow the Zeiss anymore I am willing to sell most of my macro lenses just to afford the Zeiss.</p>

<p>Two lenses that stand out (of at least 40+ lenses I used for 35mm in say 4 decades) because of their rendition:</p>

<p>Nikon 28mm f 2.0 MF ( used one of the first copies, must have been near 1972, already got CRC and later bought one of the latest version because I wanted one again)<br>

Zeiss Macro Planar 100mm f 2.0</p>

<p>Both lenses are still great on a D3.<br>

Cheers<br>

walter</p>

<p>Both are great lenses and I own both.<br>

Redundant? Yes of course. But prices are low and IQ is excellent even by todays standard - so why not get both :-)<br>

Both lenses typically show a very easy moving zoom mechanism. Can be a problem when pointing the lens down hands off on a tripod.<br>

Would I sell one of them? Given the low price only to a good friend.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not a fan of polarizers, since good glass negates the need</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use pol filters when needed even on my best lenses.<br>

I wonder how "good glass" could act as polariser e.g remove surface reflections - new physics?</p>

<p>Nina it is always worth a try but you are probably running against windmills :-)</p>

<p>Let me add: sharpness is an illusion anyway .-P</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you shoot raw you can set WB in PP to any value you like.</p>

<p>So it depends how you post process. For example in Adobe ACR you can just load all files from different cameras and assign a chosen WB to all files.</p>

<p>Well a used 300mm f2.8 AIS version may be an excellent alternative in cases where you may get away with MF.</p>

<p>Depending where you are on "your hill" and the angle of view to the skiing folks this may be hard or not too hard. Wide open or one stop closed you would get excellent speed, object separation and IQ.</p>

<p>For going uphill in the snow you may want to leave this lens in the car though :-)</p>

<p>I agree with Rodeos comments on the two early Nikkor zoom lenses but cannot confirm that the AFD Version of the 50mm f1.8 is optically not as good as the AIS Versions. I owned two versions of the AFD 50mm f1.8 (still own my second one) and the optical quality is excellent between 2.8 and 11 on a D3 and from f5.6 on partially better than the 50mm f1.4 AFD that I also owned. This f 1.4 lens is not only a bit faster but also better than the f1.8 version near wide open to f4. </p>

<p>We may come to different conclusions perhaps due to AF errors due to the somewhat cheap mechanical built (including backlash) and based on the sample variation, both already mentioned by Rodeo.</p>

<p>Of course small variations in IQ may also depend on the lens + body combination and use of film versus digital sensor.<br>

For the IQ at such a low price of the 50mm AFD f1.8 this lens is a must have anyway.</p>

<p>To come to the original point: For a used AIS lens I would get the lens with the best condition. Even 200 US$ are not expensive for a mint version considering the good mechanical quality and expected long lifetime of these AIS lenses. If you do not need the low light capability the f1.8 is a cheaper and probably better choice than the f1.4 for general use.<br>

Be aware though that good MF accuracy will be hard to obtain with some modern bodies with small or AF "optimized" viewfinders even at f1.8.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Emilio do you have a reference about the memory bank use on CF cards? Is there a standard or is it up to the brand?</p>

<p>As to the garbage I was once able to restore images (from a crashed hard drive - apparently different from CF cards) because the recovery software I used was able to detect image data in the "just rows of zeros and one's" on the device.<br>

But I agree that one might want to overwrite old data during format which is not done by a simple format.</p>

<p>Sue when you convert raw to tiff you already process a lot using settings in lightroom.<br>

It would be good to either list all settings or better make a raw file available.<br>

It is generally helpful to post an example but in this case it may not be sufficient and I may nor be the only one who needs a little help in pointing out what exactly the artifacts are (I have no clue what the image should look like without artifacts).<br>

Are the posted images 400% crops? I know it can help to increase magnification but just going from 100% to 400% will generate some artifacts. Whether these are the ones we are supposed to identify or not is a question in itself .-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In fact, most of the time I don't even format the card.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is not a good idea.</p>

<p>With time your files will be fragmented and the write and read processes may slow down.<br>

Also in case of data loss on your SD card it will be really difficult to recover files from a card that is partially unreadable. When erasing files from a card the images are not physically erased but only flagged as erased. So a lot of "garbage" is left on a card that stores files over and over again.</p>

<p>Unless you know exactly what you do it is better to format the card in the camera.</p>

<p>Shun I use the menu to format my cards in the D3.<br>

So there seems a way to format without the need of the delete button.</p>

<p>John you are asking a complicated question with no simple answer.<br>

So many parameters go into what some people would consider "a reasonable print size limit".<br>

One parameter is for example viewing distance.<br>

If the comparison with film of the same format will not help you it may be best to rent a camera for a weekend and give it a try.</p>

<p>200mm Micro Nikkor in good condition for much less than 400 US$ ? </p>

<p>Probably depends where you live. Here in Germany the 200mm micro Nikkor AIS is hard to find in good condition. So I have seen that people pay more than 400 US$ for a good sample or wait for 6+ month on ebay. The market was flooded several years ago.</p>

<p>I checked KEH and there are two offers, one for 275 US$ without tripod collar - something I would not recommend. The other one is 465 US$ but seems modified with chip contacts. Could be a good thing if done properly. Still in the price range of the Tamron 90mm new.</p>

<p>If you are willing to go for the 90mm to 105mm range there are quite a few opportunities to find a low cost solution.<br>

One is the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens. It is AF and rather cheap new.<br>

A good lens for a start in macro.</p>

<p>John we had many heated discussions in all fora about digital/film comparison including noise years ago.</p>

<p>Today the days of this "debate" are over for a good reason. The results are so clear.</p>

<p>At low ISO film and digital are mainly "different" and grain or noise are hardly any issue. Unless you get pro+ development and print directly film cannot match digital in image quality and even then a full frame pro digital camera produces images that look more like MF film in many ways. Scanning film looses a lot even in costly professional scanning.<br>

At higher ISO - and for film that starts already at ISO 400 - digital is far superior. I have no problem shooting at 3200 with my full frame D3 (same sensor on the D700) at very tolerable noise levels. One important feature is also that one can change ISO on the fly with digital cameras while using film one had to bring several bodies to be fast responding.</p>

<p>In early digital cameras digital noise often looked ugly (perhaps just too different) as compared to film grain but the noise I see at 6400 ISO today does not look any worse than film grain. Of course this is a matter of taste.</p>

<p>Starting macro the 105 macro lens will be enough. It will be a bit more universal than the shorter focal length of 105mm.</p>

<p>While you can hardly do any wrong getting the 55mm f2.8 lens you can always get a 55mm f2.8 micro Nikkor any time at a low price, well below 100 US$ for excellent condition.<br>

Of course the question is what is your decent price and what is the condition.<br>

Look at KEH or similar places for current prices.</p>

<p>I will not mention that I got a number of macro lenses and feel that I need each of them :-)</p>

<p> </p>