luke_kaven

<p>Well said, Ilkka! You are right about the fact that the EVF messes with your vestibular system as well as your visual system. It's akin to what's called "simulator sickness", which was noted first in flight simulators as nausea induced by incongruous physical/visual/vestibular cues. That's been extended into the idea of "virtual reality sickness".</p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality_sickness">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality_sickness</a></p>

<blockquote> <p>@ Luke "Can I see every nuance of a portrait subject's facial expression in the viewfinder?" - Well, if the camera is set on a tripod and it's a formal portrait or modelling session then IMO you shouldn't be looking through the viewfinder at all. Directly looking at the sitter and communicating with them is much better.</p> </blockquote> <p>If I didn't make this clear earlier, my primary concern is being able to discern details of facial expressions on any subject, regardless of setup. I'm looking for the telling moment, and I need to be able to see it. If I can't do that, then the camera is worthless to me.</p> <p>By way of comparison, most APS-c DSLRs are complete failures at this. The D800 is not good enough. The D4 is pretty good. The F3 is very good.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I've just thought of another want: Provision to use leaf-shuttered lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>Very interesting, RJ! It wouldn't be that hard to do. One could get sync from the leaf shutter. The camera could have a generalized "external shutter" mode, which might be a bit more ambitious. </p>

<p>The mirrorless bill of goods is a complex one, a camera that needs to be all things to all people somehow and yet usually fails at one or two important things. It's a tough nut to solve.</p> <p>For me, a camera comes down to something fairly simple. Does it facilitate my connection with the subject and composition in the immediacy of the moment? Because if it doesn't do that, it's worthless to me.</p> <p>So this boils down to a few things. (1) Can I see every nuance of a portrait subject's facial expression in the viewfinder? (2) Can I manually focus the shot as instantaneously as possible? [And of course...(3) Can I get the shot within 40 msec of hitting the release? And (4) is the camera ergonomically appropriate for constant use?]</p> <p>Satisfying (1) and (2) seem to be the hardest to achieve. </p> <p>In the viewfinder, I want a top notch optical view port that is entirely free of aberrations corner-to-corner and no-compromise diopter corrections (D4 level viewfinder optics minimum). And I want a color-calibrated 4k EVF with 120Hz refresh.</p> <p>I suspect Nikon is going to hesitate on IBIS since they're in the business of equipping and selling lenses with OIS. </p>

<p>The ART 24 is another design with an extended image circle for improved response in the edges and corners. Stefan Steib (maker of the H-Cam Master shift-tilt adapter) reports that the ART 24 can shift up to 8mm without vignetting. I'd expect this, along with the other ART primes, to be a superb landscape lens. Some have reported difficulties in flatness of field using the Nikon 28/1.8g at distance.</p> <blockquote> <p>Sigma ART 1,4/50mm landscape vertical shift 15mm /f11 no vignetting<br />Sigma ART 1,4/35mm landscape vertical shift 12mm /f11 no vignetting<br />Sigma ART 1,4/24mm landscape vertical shift 7-8mm /f11 no vignetting</p> </blockquote>

<blockquote> <p>consider a 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E zoom. I'm always amazed by the IQ of this little gem every time I use it (and on a D800)</p> </blockquote> <p>+N</p> <p>Everyone should have one of these. </p>

<p>The D3/D700 sensor develops major problems with pattern noise above ISO3200. The sensor has a major problem with blooming in the presence of blown highlight pixels. In a dark scene, the blooming can be seen all the way horizontally across the frame. Practically unfixable.</p> <p><em>The D3s has none of those problems.</em> [i complained so much about the D3 that Nikon gave me a D3s in trade.] You can use it nicely up to ISO12800, and you can push it as far as your aesthetics desire. The D3s was my favorite for shooting at night in a moving taxi. Pushing the shutter up to 1/200th, I could get very nice looking moody night shots at ISO51200 equiv. </p>

<p>Also for consideration is the Samyang 135 f/2, which is a manual focus lens of modern design. I've seen good reviews of it, but have not tried it myself. </p>

<p>Wouter - Interesting. There might have been some mechanical considerations as well, in the business of moving multiple groups around for AF.</p>

<p>From Mir:<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Nikon's first autofocus 28mm wideangle lens was released in 1986. It has a different optical composition from the earlier manual focus lens. I am not sure why Nikon didn't retained the MF's 8E/8G optical formula but the AF 28mm uses a simpler 5 elements in 5 groups design. </p> </blockquote>

<p>Kent: Definitely give that 28/2 AiS a try on your D800e. That lens has something to spare. I also bought the 28/2 originally for my F3, and later also bought the 28/1.8g. I think I reach for the 28/2 at least as often as I reach for the 28/1.8g on my D800. The 28/2 has "The Pretty". </p>

<blockquote> <p>Another option is the series-E 75-150/3.5. You trade a bit of reach for more speed, the ability to zoom and the ability to focus much closer. It's the same size as the 200/4.</p> </blockquote> <p>Glad you suggested this. The 75-150E is a cult classic that produces a rendering of rare beauty. I love that lens! They are very inexpensive ($100-130), but one usually has to find a fix for the floppy one-touch zoom ring. It can be fixed properly for about $125, or you can kludge it. </p>

<blockquote> <p>if the OP is shooting in RAW, how relevant are the 5600 degree Kelvin and profile setttings? Do they relate to the pre-shot image and histogram seen on the back LCD and its effect on the photgrapher's exposure adjustments?</p> </blockquote> <p>In current firmware, the settings for in-camera JPEG determine the histogram shown on the rear LCD, even when one is shooting raw. Nikon has suggested there may be in the future a "raw histogram" feature as a part of their advanced firmware initiative, but as far as I know, it hasn't materialized yet.</p>

<p>You could also get the 180/2.8 AF-D or AF, both of which are sharp ED-IF formulations. I bought 180/2.8D in near-mint condition for under $500. It is light and relatively compact, and a very high performer. </p> <p>Of course, the 200/4 AI is unbelievably light and compact. The issue will be whether you get a good specimen or a lesser one. Sometimes the clean lens is the bad one nobody liked. My 200/4 had a clean body, but was optically very disappointing -- disappointing on the 12MP D3.</p>

<p>There might be a short list of things to tend to here.</p> <p>1) If you're going to use AF, I'd recommend AF-C with 3D tracking. Very slight movements in subject or camera will throw you way off, especially at 36MP. Clearly that happened in this case.<br> 2) It would not hurt to do an AF fine-tune with this lens, to make sure it is indeed nailing focus where you intend it to be.<br> 3) If you want to know your true exposure, I'd suggest Uni-WB, or the closest equivalent. But in the case of this picture, you will see that your highlights are blown only because you used a profile with a tone curve. If you use a "neutral" or "linear", you will see that the highlight end has a little more headroom than you think it does. You should be able to save this shot.</p> <p>On this last point - remember that the "standard" profile boosts highlights and attenuates shadows to give contrast. This causes highlights to appear blown where they are not blown in raw. You likely have from 1/2 to a full stop of headroom left in the raw. I believe LR is smart enough to do recovery by actually drawing on real data, instead of trying to reconstruct needlessly.</p> <p>If you want your in-camera histogram to read (pretty much) correctly, you'd need to shoot at 5600K and use a "flat" or "neutral" profile.</p>

<p>The Sigma ART primes use a vastly oversized image circle to achieve critical sharpness across the 35mm frame. Hartblei HCam makes a shift-tilt system that works with these lenses. The 50mm allows up to a 15mm shift without significant degradation! Similar results can be achieved with the ART 35 (up to 12mm shift). The HCam system also works with the Nikon 14-24 (and the Canon 11-24), which also has a vastly expanded image circle. </p> <p>http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99985.0#lastPost</p>

<p>The actual focus is on the hair about 2 inches in front of the face. Had you gotten the focus on the eyes, it would have looked right. Yes, a little more depth-of-field would have helped, but it would not have solved the problem of focus error. </p> <p>You might consider re-examining the focus settings or using manual focus. Simple focus and recompose is a very iffy proposition. Dynamic 3D tracking would help. But in my view, there is no reason in the world why the subjects eyes should fall on a focus point. </p> <p>Pictures are not framed based on focus points, but are framed on whatever artistically is best -- which is almost /never/ on the focus point (or any other given point). For me, manual focus in an FX DSLR always works best Though for some people it takes a little practice, it is worth doing.</p>

<p>The Nikkor 28/2 and 28/2.8 are very good at distance, but they are improved close up because of Close Range Correction (CRC). The 28/2 has Nikon Integrated Coating (NIC), and is one of the most flare-free lenses I've ever used.</p> <p><a href="http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/28mmnikkor/index.htm">http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/28mmnikkor/index.htm</a></p>

<p>I've posted this before, but it's a good indication of the range of sample variation in the 28/2.8 AI. When it's good, it's very very good. Etc.</p> <p>http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/28mm_2.html</p>

<p>My 28/2 AI can resolve down the pixel level (strands of hair, etc) on my D800. But there is some perceived roll-off in the upper frequencies, which actually gives the lens some of its sought-after cinematic character. The 28/2.8 can also be excellent, but be aware that there are significant sample variations that run the range, so it's very important to have a good specimen. The 28/1.8G is sharp, but a bit clinical. It is relatively affordable though. </p>

<p>If the lens for any reason does not say "AI"on it, then you should not mount it on a modern camera. The adaptation is a simple one, and it involves carving a small notch in the aperture ring to accommodate a follower-ring on the camera body. Without this notch, the lens will crush the follower-ring when the lens is mounted. But the adaptation is a one-time fix, can be done by a Nikon tech shop, and should cost only about $35.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'm currently looking for a Nikon F3/T and AiS 28mm/f2, 50mm f1.2, 105mm f2.5.</p> </blockquote> <p>The 28/2 and 105/2.5 are wonderful on digital. [i don't have the 50/1.2.] You will like. The finder on the F3 is like a picture window in your living room, big as life. My biggest wish for Nikon's DSLRs is that bodies at the D810 level could have a finder like /that/.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Curious that in the dealer ads, a number of dealers were offering a very wide range of items as used.</p> </blockquote> <p>A number of the big New York stores had deep stock on used items (as they do today). There was a lot of equipment moving in that marketplace every day, coming in and going out. Many of these stores did heavy mail order business. People of course would travel to NY as well to buy and sell.</p> <p>Today at Adorama, there are many used items that are stacked up. They list only 2-3 copies of an item at a given time. When one of them sells, they bring up another copy out of deep stock and list it. </p>

<p>Looks like prices settled in in comparison to the earlier (1950) ads. Almost half of what they were in some cases.</p> <p>Leica IIIf w/ 50/2 Summicron - just under $200.<br> Leica M3 w/ 50/2 Summicron - just under $300.<br> Nikon S w/ 50/1.4 coated Nikkor - $188.<br> Contax IIa w/ 50/2 Sonnar is cheaper, but still $336.</p> <p>I can see where I would have bought the Nikon S before the IIIf, if I couldn't afford the M3. Nice competitive edge to Nikon there. I wouldn't have looked twice at the Contax in this lineup. I can see that Zeiss suffered here, because surely they would have priced this camera competitively if they could have. Next to the M3, though, it's toast.</p>

<p>Wow, $475 for a Contax S and 58/2 Biotar. $460 for a Contax IIa with 50/1.5 Sonnar. But the Kine Exakta II with 50/2 Biotar is only $169. </p> <p>What gives? Why wouldn't the Exakta be priced sky high? I remember when the Nikon F2 came out around 1972, it was under $500 dollars. In 1950, this was probably 2 months salary in a decent job.</p>