walterh

<p>Jonas we are all trying to improve our and the readers skills in photography. As long as we all work on this together we can improve our personal feelings in the end as well .-)</p>

<p>Jonas I do not do smartness comparisons on internet fora :-)</p>

<p>If you got this impression I am sorry - it was not my intention.</p>

<p>My experience though is that readers of this forum are of various degrees of experience in photography or physics. You gave detailed information that happened to be wrong and I felt it was for the benefit of the reader to correct this.<br>

It can easily happen that someone may read a post with false information and take this for granted.<br>

After all it is more important to avoid the spreading of wrong concepts than to be afraid to hurt someones feeling.</p>

 

<p>Errol did you use a card reader and did you look at the files on the card?<br>

Same direction as Shun is pointing to .-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I want to see the measurement that the Nikon pol filter offers much better transmission than say a B+W filter unless the pol effect is also smaller.<br>

Hoya claims 25% more transmission (than regular filter - compared to what kind and brand?) - nothing relevant since hardly noticeable if it is true.<br>

Turning the pol filter "1/4 turn back" eliminates the effect. 1/4 turn is 90 degrees! For me it would not be worth the effort to use the filter this way but if it works for you its just fine.<br>

Of course 90 degrees is just perfect if you change from landscape to portrait format :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You can always increase color saturation independent of the fact that you use or do not use a pol filter :-) So it is clearly different.</p>

<p>Of course shooting in automatic mode and vivid setting is one easy thing to do.</p>

 

<p>Jose you may gain two stops with VR. Now for a gain of three I would like to see the statistics ^^.<br>

You know how steady your hand is :-P</p>

<p>I used to be able to shoot 1/8 with my 28mm on the F2 in a dark church (one out of say 5). Today my heartbeat is faster - blood pressure higher but then my total mass is less affected by outside factors ^^.</p>

<p>But this was on film - pixel peeping at 100% with a simple mouse click changed a lot of our views.<br>

Guess what: I recently bought a carbon fiber Gitzo series 5 :-) That lets me shoot at 1s ^^.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Service quality seems very high with Nikon Germany.<br>

You can monitor progress of repair via internet interface and track number.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes it looks like some work to create a lens profile.<br /> So if not in a hurry one can wait for third party sellers or perhaps public domain offers.<br>

I tried the two most used lenses I have - 24-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200 VRI f2.8.<br>

Both corrections look good at least on first sight.<br>

For details one can search the "official" Adobe forum.</p>

 

<p>I may have missed it during my vacation if it was already posted but it did not come up in a quick search.<br>

ACR 6.1 for Photoshop CS5 now offers lens correction profiles for some Nikkor lenses.</p>

<div></div>

<p>100% crop</p><div></div>

<p>Example of dark "badly illuminated" church. (Just a snapshot)<br /> Shot using a D3+24-70mm f2.8 Nikon zoom lens, hand-held (going wider with a wider zoom would actually allow a bit longer exposure).<br /> ISO 3200 1/60s f3.5. The image is actually exposed very light to have less noise in the dark areas. Not a real challenge is it?<br /> Just simple processing for this demo.<br /> Some people need VR some do not. I shot many very dark churches in Tenerife and got good results. If true free-standing handheld does not work there usually is some support available, you could lean on or press your camera against it. Of course one can always shoot a large number and hope for one good shake-free image :-) My personal take is practice gives better results than VR :-)</p><div></div>

<p>"I am processing the pictures now, so I am wondering if the quality/sharpness of the outputs is good enough in real world,..."</p>

<p>Leon it takes only a few minutes to process your images. You could look at your images and decide if the IQ is good enough for you :-)<br>

If you post examples we could see if VR helped you to take good shots. Of course your tremor will be different from my tremor ^^.</p>

 

<p>(2) I did not know that lenses can talk :-)<br>

Seriously who said so ? Was it Sigma? Sounds like BS to me but to make certain you should email Sigma about it and about point 1 as well. Is there a normal filter thread on this lens?<br>

(3) Call or write, email etc. B+H. What matters is what B+H says not someone you do not know in the internet. B+H are very highly respected but what you got in writing you can be certain about.</p>

<p>As always it depends on the intended use. So I can only comment in general terms.</p>

<p>I like my 17-35mm Nikkor - it is a good companion for the 24-70mm. I like to have the overlap in this range from 24-35mm.</p>

<p>One advantage is that I can use a pol filter (same thread as the 24-70). At the wide end a pol filter will give uneven effects but this is true for all lenses covering such a wide angle.</p>

<p>I like the focal length range for my type of shooting - your application may be different.</p>

<p>When I use it for people "environmental portraits" edge to edge sharpness at f2.8 is sufficient for my needs and for landscapes I usually stop down at least a bit - so no problem there either. Center sharpness and contrast are superb.</p>

<p>Distortion is relevant especially at the wide end but it can be mostly (not completely due to complex curvature) corrected in PP. This is also true for some minor CA that can be corrected in PP.</p>

<p>All in all a great lens for me and I would go for it again today.<br>

I cannot comment on the price.</p>

<p>David this looks very promising.<br>

Is there a link to a distributor?</p>

<p>Arnab thanks for your comments :-)<br>

I just came back from a trip so my apology that it took some time to come back to you.<br>

Best wishes.<br>

Walter</p>

 

<p>Arnab will the Metz be triggered by infrared? Or more precise. Does the SB800 trigger it like using it on a D3.<br>

Did you ever compare the illumination to a true ringflash? I believe the Metzt uses no ring but 2 light sources?</p>

<p>(may not be able to respond for 2 weeks - will leave in a few hours for a trip :-)</p>

 

<p>Did the lens do it or not? Easy to answer - just take the lens off and shoot another image :-)</p>

<p>Assuming that you are not pulling our leg please define what near darkness is.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Read SB-800 specifications to discover minimal shooting distance for automatic exposure."</p>

<p>Useful comment Frank. Let me add that you can dim the flash in the field if needed by pulling a transparent white paper in front of the flash. Not the best solution in the color work-flow but usually not a problem. If you got a cold you might just have the right tool with you :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Why do you not call Zeiss and ask the producer? I expect that you get quite a few details from them.</p>

 

<p>In view of all those people who bought PS plugins for PS32 I expect it will take a long time before Adobe will drop 32bit OS support for PS.</p>

 

<p>Did you unplug it for a few minutes?</p>

<p>Besides following good practice in exposure you should think about the way your film will be developed.</p>

<p>If you change labs often it is up to your guess and a +1/2 to +1stop overexposure might be a good idea.</p>

<p>Using my F5 a few years ago I liked the consistency of the metering. After I decided to develop my film myself ( for real professional labs I had to mail film and I did not want this) I was really impressed by the F5 metering. What a difference a precise development made! I used a single time developer kit to develop 5 135 films per tank. In reasonable light conditions all frames were perfect. I did not even know how good the F5 was until I stopped using different and non-pro labs.</p>

<p>Another thing is to adjust your development to your scanning. Films have an optimal density for scanning but of course this needs to correspond to your scanner. If your scanner is capable of getting denser areas with little noise then you can develop some films a bit denser.</p>

<p>For example I used the Fuji 160 S pro film for high contrast light outdoors. My Nikon scanner CS8000 handles a bit denser negatives well and I exposed according to 130ISO and pushed 1/2 stop in development. You may want to try a number of films because everybody exposes a bit different. You also may need a little experience for different light situations.</p>

<p>And as you know every film type is different and you may want to start with just one or two types of film that you use most and only later expand your selection if necessary.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would use a clear or UV filter on the beach.<br>

My personal preference for such a good lens is B+W.<br>

Makes no sense not to use the best available quality for this lens.</p>

<p>An exception is if you expect a lot of sand and spray in strong wind, in this case of sand blasting the cheapest filter is just right to through it away after the shooting^^.</p>

<p>BTW: A stuck filter usually is an indication that the filter was a cheap one. Of course the threads should be clean when you put the filter on. I never had any serious problem removing a B+W filter. The metal and machining precision make the difference.</p>

<p>For everything else no protective filter - just the hood. Of course it will depend on the type on concert you shoot^^.</p>