turgut_tarhan

<p>I'm in the same boat, in a way. I'm mainly a landscape photographer coming from 35mm & 6x7 film era. D200 being my first digital SLR, then I've used D300 for 3 years, and finally bought a 2nd hand D700 in good condition for $2000 as a temporary solution keeping in mind that Nikon will soon release a 24mp D800 (or something similar).<br>

The first thing I noticed with D700 compared to D300 was its stunning dynamic range, and acuity of edges. Ability to photograph at high iso settings was another bonus in case of adverse conditions. In the absence of VR lenses (my preference for less weight) & less perceived DoF, I noticed it forced me to return to MF-like discipline (eg. more use of tripod & horizon level, being more selective in the field avoiding any easy snaps that mix with the serious ones). The ease of D300 + 18-200mm VR could sometimes spoil the photographer !<br>

D7000 is fine, but approaching the end of DX road with 16mp, due to lens resolution & diffraction limitations; while FX has more potential than this imo. Yet, compared to D700, with its smaller weight and dedicated DX VR zooms D7000 is more fun, it must be a breeze to use. Wide angle is no more of a problem; simply Nikkor 10-24mm & Tokina 11-16mm are stellar optics.<br>

Imo, D700 has 3 major drawbacks from landscape viewpoint: 1) Mediocre sensor resolution (even though the files are clean, it needs to be upressed for a double-spread magazine page and there is little room for cropping, sometimes stitching is necessary for higher resolution), 2) Inaccurate (95% viewfinder), 3) Heavy body & lenses (problem for hiking in nature)<br>

D700 tolerates any lens put in front at around f/8; but a 24mp D800 may not be that forgiving, it may need best lenses to get the full potential of this resolution. It will be more prone to motion blur or focusing errors. Diffraction will set about one stop earlier too. For now, I have a 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (a good sample) for general purpose, 20mm f/2.8 for ultra-wide, Sigma 8mm f/3.5 circular fisheye & 50mm f/1.8 for low-light. They are all landscape-oriented preferences. The weight of D700 + 28-200mm to carry on neck at hiking is near my limit. It is heavier than D300, thus restricts the already limited selection of FX lenses that are less heavy than 500g. Anyway usually I don't need a fast glass, since it would be mostly used at f/5.6 to f/16 range anyway. Yet, the lens must be sharp at corners when stopped down, and all my lenses are.<br>

Though sometimes I tempt at the ease of getting a D7000 + 18-105mm VR, with the rationale of "why take the burden since there's an practical & more affordable way now with similar quality if not better", yet I never forget the true reason of moving to FX, which is the upcoming 24mp D800...</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I'm in the same situation, having skipped the D700 because of its similar resolution and similar IQ at low-iso. Its advantages don't seem worth the expense for me. D300 is good enough for most jobs, and DX is not too inferior to FX. Since there are fine wide angle lenses like the Nikkor 10-24mm or Tokina 11-16mm, it's none of a problem now.</p>

<p>If high-iso performance is an urgent necessity for some reason, then get the D700 without hesitation. Otherwise you may wait like me & many others until Nikon delivers a higher-mp FX possibly with video function to be called D800, D900 or D700x, 18mp or 24mp as rumored. The problem is nobody really knows how much time is left; it could be announced tomorrow or a year later. Before this happens, there is a chance we may see a D700s (D700 + video + slightly improved noise characteristics) too.</p>

<p>Just guesses... That's why I preferred on 'casual conversations'. All information available is as below, no images yet:<br>

AF-S Nikkor 24 to 135 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR:<br />lightweight and affordable zoom with high image quality, 77mm filter thread, 610 g, 7 rounded blades diaphragm, 3 aspherical and 2 ED members, enhanced contrast-detect AF-S mode<br>

Nikkor 24-120mm VR has been usually criticized for its mediocre optical quality, even stooped down. Wondering how this speculated lens may become. If good as stated, it will likely be the most popular lens of FX format.</p>

 

<p>Due to the leaked roadmap (for real or not, but recent announcement of D300s & D3000 strengthens its probability), there is a new lens which caught my attention: Nikkor 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR.<br>

I guess it will be made a kit lens with the upcoming 24.5mp D700x, because of its likely balanced weight, VR ability, and a pleasing focal range for most applications. It may have an average mechanical build. How about optical quality? It should yield acceptable corner-to-corner sharpness to be coupled with a hi-res sensor, at least when stopped to f/8.<br>

Any opinions?</p>

 

<p>Coupled with similar lenses and setup, even the Canon 5D mk I had slightly more resolution and sharper results (at low-iso) than Nikon D700. Let alone mk II. How can anyone compare a 21mp camera with 12mp? D700 only excels in high-iso noise & ergonomics. While the expected D700x will be a direct competitor to 5D mk II, in almost any aspect.</p>

<p>The recent samples on the internet make me think if D300 has a less

aggressive anti-aliasing filter; since they look sharper & more detailed at

pixel level when compared to D200, contrary to what one may expect a less

sharper image at 100% magnification because of increased resolution from 10 to

12mp.<br>

<br>

Good news if so; while D200's strong AA filter ruined some of the details that

could be useful in landscapes, for the sake of (possible) moire. Though more

difficult, moire may be tamed in postprocessing instead; but it's not possible

to regain details once lost by that filter.

Interesting, <a href="http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm">this company</a>

removes AA filters from stock D200 and calls it D200HR; the results shown look

very promising.<br>

<br>

I almost always photograph raw (though not the only reason, but Nikon's in-

camera jpg interpretation is lossy vs Canon's), use apertures around f/8, show

best effort to eliminate any possible softness caused by shake or poor focus,

set the sharpening to max. and apply extra USM (eg. 100,1,0) as much as the

image may accept after upsampling to double-spread size. <br>

<br>

My short-term aim is to see a photograph printed on the magazine matching 645

Velvia-scan in terms of color reproduction, detail & dynamic range. Therefore,

I'm impatient to get one D300.</p>

<p>"Nikon is pumping a lot of cash in advertising for the D300. Still the D3 gets more attention. What does that say? :)"<br>

<br>

Thanks, wish to believe this; but if you look at <a href="http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d300/sample.htm" target="_blank">Nikon's

official site</a>, there's no more than a couple of ugly-blue bike photos (apologies to the photographer). While best advertisement lies upon the results, more than money can do. Before anything, Nikon should certainly exhibit some

proper samples from the main genres in photography, like portraits, landscape, etc. Is it so difficult?<br>

<br>

PS: There will unlikely be any equivalent of the wonder-lens DX 18-200mm VR in FX format, which corresponds to 27-300mm, unless made at the size of a cannon, or same-size but f/8-11. Instead, one must have at least two of the best FF lenses or 3-4 primes (& use a tripod more often).<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>What's all this overhype & excitement about the D3? I see much more interest

to D3 over D300. Yes, hearing the word "FX", first full-frame of Nikon; but

will it offer any noticeable difference to justify its price over D300? I doubt

so & think D300 will accomplish almost anything at the same quality point that

D3 may do. Only with the exception of very high ISO advantage, and better

viewfinder maybe. Wideangle? No problem; there has long been the Nikon 12-24mm,

or 3rd-party even wider options. Does it worth the switch? May anyone be able

to tell the difference between two shots, say one with D3 + 14-24 @ 18mm vs

D300 + 12-24 @ 12mm, both f/8 & ISO 200, (which is normal for landscape

application)? Who needs ISO 6400 or 12800? To photograph something moving fast

under moonlight?<br>

<br>

D300 may even yield better images under standard conditions, due to the long-

discussed reasons. While D3 is very expensive, unnecessarily bulky, and needs a

couple of the expensive & monstrous lenses only to slightly surpass a D300 cw

18-200mm (again under normal conditions) in terms of definition & DR. There

isn't any side-by-side comparison yet. Hope, time proves me wrong. Unless

assured it's really worth, I neither have the budget, nor the will to carry all

these bulk on my neck & in a rucksack for 10 hours on a mountain, or on the

sidewalks of a busy town.<br>

<br>

Admitting that technology has reached to the limit of DX format (unless there

is something revolutionary with the sensor, like foveon; certainly the future

is in the full-frame if better results is the goal. Yet unlikely not with a

12mp D3. To see any considerable difference, there must be a higher-mp

successor, called D3s or whatsoever, at the range of 16-20 megapixels, (and

hopefully at a reasonably smaller size) while these days the successor to Canon

5D is expected soon, as rumored.<br>

<br>

Before that happens, I'll live with the 1.5x crop factor as a happy D200 owner,

and migrate to D300 even only because of its 100% viewfinder.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.turguttarhan.com" target="_blank">Turgut Tarhan</a></p>

<p>This is only a "first impression" that I wanted to share my unbiased excitement. Mamiya is Mamiya, Nikon is Nikon. Both are good for what they're intended. The color was dull because of mode I; but then mode III yielded more saturated reds & greens. Sharpening was set to max, and I haven't applied any extra usm. For the lens; sorry, I don't have any access to other Nikon lenses, except a colleague's 24-120mm which I've already run a quick comparison @ f/8 (18-200mm

was sharper except around 50mm center)<br>

<br>

The file was already from <a target="_blank" href="http://www.turguttarhan.com/mosaic/test.htm"> another test about mosaic

stitching</a>. You may find the details of testing procedure. I may try another test soon like on this page, and this time pay ~$15 & have the film scanned with a Heidelberg Tango drum scanner @ 10x mag. to stop any objections against scanning, though

knowing there won't be much difference except for amplifying

grain.</p><p>I've bought this camera mainly for mosaic stitching to obtain or

even exceed Mamiya 7 resolution, like how I did with 20D. Now, I have a feeling

that maybe I won't need that often. A single frame would even be sufficient if

stitching is not convenient. I agree D200 & 20D are on par at in-camera

jpeg; yet these raw @ ISO 100 converted by Capture v.4.4 with no NR showed a

miracle without any digital watercolor-like effect on details, but more like

film scan. That's what made me so excited. Other converters may exhibit

different results.</p

<p>After a long time of research in finding the right stuff, I've eventually

bought a Nikon D200 + 18-200mm one week ago. I'm amazed to see how its raw

conversion came close to Mamiya 7 scan (which revealed almost all the info

recorded) in terms of resolution. No need to say, it's obviously better than

20D, and much beyond my expectations.<br>

<br>

Pls. see the screenshot for comparison. No catch! FoV is about equal at

horizontal, and same areas are cropped. Mamiya is 100%, and Nikon is 125%

upressed to compare easier. Both were photographed at optimal apertures. There

are seasonal differences and minor changes in the scenery due to 3-month

lapse.<br>

<br>

Unlike Canon 20D, there is substantial difference between in-camera jpeg and

raw. Even at ISO 100, I can see little noise like fine film grain on midtones

and shadows. While converting, the camera seems to apply noise reduction to

some degree, which destroys fine detail. The application may not distinguish

noise from detail, and results in smeared off leaves, weed, rock or any other

fractal object.<br>

<br>

But, the raw converted by Nikon Capture without NR is exactly what I'd like to

see for landscapes.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.turguttarhan.com" target="_blank">Turgut Tarhan</a></p><div></div>

The software is <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html">Autostitch</a>.

Although I think I've done an explicit page; to make things clear, I've been looking for a digital camera near or equivalent to Mamiya 7 scan. Yes, now there happens to be; but the prices are unaffordable for me.

 

So I have the following options:

 

a)wait until such a camera is available,

b)buy whatever I can afford, in awareness that it will not fully meet my expectations,

c)a new horizon: mosaic stitching (poor man's hi-res digital)

 

I just wanted to share my findings, excitement and hesitations whether possible at challenging landscape conditions. I'm not into imposing anything.

 

Notes for the scanner: Frontier scanner is a part of an integrated lab, looks professional, and apart from the appearance I've found its image quality somewhere between good flatbeds and drum scanning. I pay ~$2 for each one at max. or if drum scanned the whole 6x7 frame, I would be paying ~$5 at 2000dpi, and $20 at 4000dpi. Never had the chance to test the dedicated Nikon 8000 LS, but 4990 wasn't as good as the Frontier in terms of true image detail, color accuracy and DR. Otherwise I'd have already bought it at a discount industry fair for about $500, as a solution for scanning costs.

I've recently applied a comparison test, and the link

is <a href="http://www.turguttarhan.com/mosaic/test.htm"

target="_blank">here</a>. Any comments would be appreciated.

Still 8.2 mp on a 5D-like body :[ Nothing exciting :| Where is the rumored 10-11mp smaller body? I bet Canon must have considered such a camera as a threat to 5D sales. Otherwise, if 12.4mp 1.5x D2X was manufactured, then a 10.4mp 1.6x 30D-35D could have been possible. And if 350D is possible, any new camera may be available closer to that size. Wasn't the tiny 300V even a FF; yet containing a larger mirror box?

I've always used primes; but if I decided to feel the advantage of a single hi-range zoom, I'd rather prefer to see a 14-150mm VR instead; because 18 on a DX camera is only 27mm equivalent, while 14 would start from true wide, and 150 (x1.5) would still have a good reach.

 

Imho, 18-200mm VR is much biased towards the tele end, while except for the 12-24mm, Nikon does not offer any lens starting from smaller than 17mm. There must be something, an allround yet good quality lens to fill the gap. Maybe 16-90mm VR (24-135mm eqv.)

<p>I own a Mamiya 7 cw 50mm, 80mm & 210mm, and performed a side-by-side test with a Pentax 67II cw 55mm, 105mm & 200mm at optimum apertures, using a sturdy tripod with MLU activation. Frames showed that Mamiya lenses could resolve linearly %10-20 more than Pentax, depending on the lens couple, but Pentax had a nicer color reproduction.<br>

<br>

Mamiya is sharper, smaller, more silent, more handholdable, yet more difficult to operate; and Pentax is the much more versatile,

allowing straight SLR operation with an AE metering prism, yet heavy, more tripod dependent and equipped with less sharper lenses.<br>

<br>

I guess your frame exposed by Mamiya 6 + 75mm cropped to 645 size can resolve close to that of a Pentax 67 + 90mm despite of its film size advantage.<br>

<br>

It's your decision. If you are happy with Mamiya 6, than a Mamiya 7 will be very similar. But with this expense, in digital era, you may also consider a

12.8 mp Canon 5D + 24-105mm L IS bundle instead, good both for landscape,

cityscape & people photography. Personally, I'm thinking to sell all my Mamiya 7 equipment and buy the above to be my first digital camera; yet waiting for the prices to settle down. Also I'm not certain whether to wait 1-2 years more to get any

higher-mp successor, maybe called 5D II or 3D. Nikon D200 is another fine camera, but how about its future path with the DX sensor size and lenses?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.turguttarhan.com" target="_blank">Turgut Tarhan</a><br>

</p>

One solution for eliminating the infamous wide angle soft corners with FF DSLR is likely to manufacture a new lens line with wider image circle about 1.3x. The price to pay is either one f-stop or more bulk.

 

IMHO, the problem with soft corners is more evident at focal lengths wider than 24mm (and worse with full aperture). So for Canon, the first lenses to start with must be the ultra-wides, before it comes to 35mm.

 

And, what is the secret to the Zeiss wides that proves to yield better results in corner resolution and CA. I don't understand why Canon can't simply adapt the same technology from decades ago.

<p>The only serious comparison of 5D vs 1DsII yet: <a

href="http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/canon_5D/Canon_5D_

review.html"

target="_blank">http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/canon_5D

/Canon_5D_review.html</a></p>

<p>Sorry for my obsession about this subject. This result confirms my

previous thoughts (due to some initial samples on web); 5D is only

slightly

inferior to 1DsII, which is less than the linear pixel ratio. A

16.7mp 5DII

& a "more mp" 1DsIII may be expected. 22mp must be very

lens limited, and 25mp is likely the logical limit of future 35mm

DSLR.</p>

(A.Taner çok teþekkürler)

 

Thank you for all your input. I've been very happy with Win98, and never felt the need to uprade. I like the uncluttered basic gray layout and its functions. It's sad that major software companies are unwilling to support any longer (though they can). Because of this policy, every day I feel more pressure to upgrade to XP.

 

My computer is PIII 500, 256mb ram, 20Gb HD & only 8mb graphics card. Yet, I used to work with gigantic 10800x8600 pixel 200mb TIFF files from Mamiya 7 drum scans. It takes 2 min. to open such a file, and any operations like perspective control may take several minutes. Once, I managed to stitch two pieces of an architectural photo, each one like that; and the total process took 8 hours :)

 

5D's file is only 1/7 of what I mention above, at least in terms of pixel count. Therefore, I presume it will be ok, if the software lets!

 

I hope the latest version of Zoombrowser or the older version of DPP supports 5D, as it does with XT/350D.

I may have the chance to lease an EOS 5D, but not have the funds to

upgrade my computer to run Windows XP & Photoshop CS2. Currently, I'm

using Windows 98se & Photoshop 7.0.

 

Is there a way to process raw files of 5D with this configuration?

<p><a

href="http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/1DsII%205D%

20comparison.jpg" target="_blank">Here</a>

is a direct comparison of 5D vs 1Ds mkII at ISO 100, from this

Dpreview <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?

forum=1032&thread=15264378&page=1" target="_blank">forum

thread</a>. Any comments?</p>

<p>Here is another comparison <a href="http://www.pbase.com/jayseejay/florida_wildlife__canon_1ds" target="_blank">link</a>, but at ISO 100. This time, 5D is no longer better, but nearly matches 1Ds mkII for the same parameters above. Before seeing any thorough bench tests, by

analyzing other available samples, I wish to presume that the new camera can yield acceptable quality images, comparable to 1Ds mkII, keeping the advantages regarding its price, size & image storage.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd prefer to wait about a year for its successor, probably a 16-17mp 5D mkII manufactured with this new imaging technology.</p>

Here is a <a href="http://www.mrx.no/5d_vs_1DsII.html"

target="_blank"> link</a> that 5D is compared to 1Ds mkII. On this

page, I found the first pair more comparable, because it's a static

object. Both samples enlarge to full jpeg images when the first

images are clicked. Having saved both, I upressed the 5D to the image

size of 1Ds mkII only for direct comparison purpose (note that no

data is lost unlike downressing).<br>

<br>

As the unexpected result, the 5D image appears MUCH BETTER than that

of 1Ds mkII in almost all aspects, like resolution, acuity, noise and

dynamic range (yet 1Ds mkII seems more contrasty). Even some

unreadable writings on the posters at 1Ds mkII sample become readable

with 5D (e.g. the namelist on green background below the theater

announcement with cactus graphic). Amazing! But at this point, I have

two concerns; one is that I guess the author did not use a tripod

(because the frames are slightly different), and therefore the

comparison may include some artifacts due to any possible shake. The

other issue is the use of ISO 1600 setting, which does not compare

the best of two cameras.<br>

<br>

Though I don't want to draw any premature conclusion, and I'm aware

there needs a comprehensive test; still isn't the result interesting?

Would you please try the same routine and include your opinions.<br>

Although the difference of 5D vs 1Ds MkII is expected to be less than 12.8 / 16.7, due to the novel imaging technology (NR & AA filters, processing algorithms, sensor construction, etc), and image quality will even be equivalent to proper 645 film scan in many aspects; it may be wise to wait 1-2 years more until Canon makes the successor of this camera, like a 16mp 5D mkII, still in the same price range. By the time, there will likely be a pioneer 22mp 1Ds mkIII, but in a different league.

 

16mp is the image quality threshold to be accepted for serious stock agencies, as an example. Its native (non-interpolated) pixels can print a double spread page @ 300dpi industry standard. Something, a magical point that (former) MF film shooters won't regret later watching any upcoming models on the market with higher resolution. FF DSLR technology will saturate about 25mp when the resolution gain differential becomes meaningless, because of lens limitation & higher ISO noise.

 

Then, we may see MF back or integrated camera prices starting to become affordable, but this won't happen soon. BTW, $3300 seem quite a lot to invest for an intermediate 12.8mp camera, unless justified by an urgent reason. A tad more resolution would be a keeper.

I don't like lens hoods, they look bulk. If there's any flare, I use my hand. Simple :)