luke_kaven

<p>The 18-70 is acceptably sharp, but in no sense is it pretty. Having used it with the D70 when it came out, I was disappointed time and again. A quick comparison with the lowly 50/1.8d at the same aperture and matched focal length reveals the shortcomings of the 18-70 clearly. Look at the newer options.</p>

<p>Most telling is the detail on the child's pants and stitching. There clearly is a very narrow range of this image that is in perfect focus, and the texture of the pants fabric shows it. I think the lens is fine.</p>

<p>It might come as a surprise that at 105mm equivalent and f/4, the depth of field is not forgiving. Try to get up around f/8 for these shots. And be sure to use the lens hood with it.</p>

<p>And if I might say, this lens has an unpleasant way of rendering the transition from in focus to out of focus. When it is sharp, it is sharp, but when it isn't, it's ugly. </p>

<p>Setting the lens to f/22 allows the aperture to be controlled from the camera body. If you don't do this, the camera will complain.</p>

<p>The D600/610 supports screwdrive lenses. [The letter "D" indicates that distance information is sent to the body, which is used for metering, especially with flash. Not all screwdrive lenses are D lenses.]</p>

<p>Be sure the focus-mode switch on the right side of the lens mount (AF/M) is set to AF. Try gently moving the focus ring back and forth a little bit until you feel it engage. </p>

<p>Lock the aperture at f/22 to allow the camera to control the aperture.</p>

<p>My expectation is that the RAW Small is not a raw file at all, but more akin to a TIF. This would explain the relative size. I'm curious to see more details on it. In the meantime, I don't see a reason to make 16MP images smaller. </p>

<p>There is merit in all of these recommendations. This would be a good time for the OP to come back in and clarify his future plans.</p>

<p>In one scenario, the OP is headed towards an eventual FX body. In this case, it would pay to consider lenses that cover the full-frame. In another scenario, the OP is happy with building a DX system. In this case, further DX lenses would be warranted.</p>

<p>Add further considerations of subject type, and aesthetic quality. Adding something like the 85/1.8g at this point would further the OP's portrait capabilities, and deliver outstanding quality. The 60/2.8g micro is another consideration. While its focal length is only slightly past the OP's kit lens, it delivers outstanding quality with near-zero distortion, does good portrait work on both DX and FX, and allows close-up work. </p>

<p>If the OP is not concerned about extending his focal length options and is more concerned about aesthetic quality and ability to shoot in low light, then the 35/1.8g (FX) is a good "normal" lens that will also work nicely on FX.</p>

<p>The 85mm f/1.8G (the new one) sounds like it would fit your needs. It's stellar optically across the frame, has very nice bokeh, and comes at a low price. </p>

<p>Here's one review from slrgear.com. </p>

<p>http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1480</p>

<p>And my turn to apologize. Anger got the better of me.</p>

<p>Tim, I'm sure you're thinking of the myriad "I'm using my camera all wrong -- what's wrong with my camera?" postings. This wasn't one of those.</p>

<p>I didn't understand the "I don't buy many expensive lenses, so I work with what I have, flaws and all" remark. What does that have to do with returning defective merchandise for repair or replacement? Is this somehow about you? You don't return defective merchandise because you're that good that you just grit your teeth? Your work is excellent, but that's no excuse for kicking someone when they're down.</p>

<p>It's surprising that a few people will toss off snark at the OP without taking the time to look at his samples, which are obviously out of spec at f/5.6, while /at the same time/ taking just enough time out from their uncompromising artistry to engage in what they believe to be beneath them, yet not even getting that right. It seems the OP has made productive use of his time. The lens needs to be looked at.</p>

<p>I found that with musical instruments, saxophones anyway, that the beautiful mint condition horns were the horns that, most often, nobody /wanted/ to play. I had a 1946 Selmer balanced action alto that I struggled with for years. I sold it for a beat-up horn that obviously was well loved, and it played like a dream.</p>

<p>In the 16-9.net review above, the beat-up 28/2.8 wins hands down. I realize this is a sample of small numbers, but the story is often true.</p>

<p>The 28/2.8 AI(s) varies from specimen to specimen, with the best specimens being top performers that are sharp from corner to corner. I use the 28/2 AI regularly, and keep it alongside the 28/1.8G. It has a refined look in my opinion.</p>

<p>http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/28mm_2.html</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My conclusion is that a D600 (or even a Df) could work for me with the 70-200 f4 IF the AF-performance in low light is acceptable for me, which I have to test before buying.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So I've been doing professional theater and concert work for a few years. I've had the D3, D3s, D3x, D4, and D800 in these settings. For this kind of work, the D4 (or D3s) are the only cameras that will work in these settings without further considerations. </p>

<p>The D800 (and D600) are heavy producers of thermal noise, which at high gain settings produces a blusih-magenta cast over the frame with many local hot spots. There are times when I choose these cameras for the additional detail they bring in certain situations. But in order to do that, I have to be prepared to do a dark-frame subtraction each time in post. And that means also carrying around a library of dark frames. To sum up: you can get a great ISO 12800 from the D800, but never without a dark frame subtraction. The D4 will oblige you all night. :-)</p>

<p>When I first got the D800, I couldn't wait to take it into the club. True, the camera has great DR, but the DR measurements do not take thermal noise into account. </p>

<p>It could involve the entire cage and helices. The SWM might be ok, and is having trouble driving the focus group. If you're lucky, all the glass itself is ok. I don't know about the VR. I would not be surprised to hear an estimate in the $400-600 range. </p>

<p>Hi Ilkka,</p>

<p>The thermal noise source on the D600/D800 is from the active circuitry on the sensor. There are some localized hot spots around the frame, and a concentration along the bottom of the frame. Without seeing what you're seeing, I can't be entirely sure whether it's the same.</p>

<p>I kept a small library of dark frames shot at a few different shutter speeds. Do a capture on the black frame with the same WB as the target, and with NR turned entirely off. This pretty much will work. When you do a subtraction in photoshop with "Apply Image..." you can adjust the "percentage" parameter to get a little less effect. You will get a sense of what is enough when the black levels are restored to black. </p>

<p>It is sometimes a useful exercise to load up a black frame and check out its structure by ramping up the gain.</p>

<p>The D3/D700 had blooming in the presence of blown highlights. With the right tools, you could see it happens at every gain setting. But the level of pollution is just low enough that it rarely became evident except at high gain settings, and with a dark region flanking the blown highlight. The problem was the pollution extended horizontally across the entire frame. Almost impossible to fix.</p>

<p>Doing a lot of shooting in the dark, I complained to Nikon for over two years, until they finally agreed to trade me for a new D3s. The problem was solved on that camera, and ever after.</p>

<p>Ilkka, I think the difficulty you're having with the D800 at high gain settings is not pattern noise but thermal noise. With a dark frame subtraction, you can mitigate that. It looks just as you describe it.</p>

<p>And that is one issue with the D800 (perhaps a bit less with the D600). It has excellent low light response, and negligible pattern noise. You can get amazing low light images with it, with some dividends in detail enhancement. But you will have to put in the extra time and manual labor.</p>

<p>The D4/Df are capable of low light work with no further considerations. They are the best performers today.</p>

<p>And they are both way beyond the D3/D700. Those cameras topped out /just barely/ at ISO 6400, and had very serious problems with pattern noise. Worse yet, they had problems with blooming in high contrast, low light scenes, and it was impossible to fix. Trust me, compared to the newer cameras, these were troublesome.</p>

<p>I agree Shun. Probably f/1.8 is too fast for an affordable 24mm prime, and we might be done with the "affordable f/1.8" primes altogether. A couple of years ago, Nikon did patent a new 135/1.8 design. But I'm betting that one won't come cheap. The standard 24mm is a "prime" candidate for an update of some kind though.</p>

<p>Well, with the arrival of the f/1.8 primes in 28/35/50/85, it seems a 24/1.8g is quite plausible. It's going to be an FX prime of course. I don't see Nikon getting into the business of making DX primes for a DX user population that historically doesn't buy more than 1.3 lenses. </p>

<p>I personally would love to have a 24/1.8g. Neither the 14-24 nor the 24-70 are that convenient as 24mm walk-around lenses. </p>

<p>What focal length(s) are you most likely to want? And how important is critical sharpness from corner to corner important to you?</p>

<p>For events, the 24-70 is a must. The optics are superb. The coatings are great and it paints nicely. The mechanicals are superb. It has only two problems, shared by all midrange zooms: (i) the distortion at the wide and long end are somewhat unpleasant, and (ii) it has sharp eyeball-slicing bokeh.</p>

<p>Hi Andrew -- I think these new Aptina sensors were built ground-up to move data off the sensor as quickly as possible. The designs we've been getting in the FX cameras are more evolved versions of a couple of classic designs, neither of which was designed for 20fps throughput. But given the demands for 4K everyday, I'm betting there is a generation of fast cameras with big sensors coming.</p>

<p>Larry, a few string recommendations:<br /> <br />First: Do not use raw capture software in your HDR application. Those raw converters are only there as a convenience, and they lack the basics that are covered well in NX/C1/LR. For example, chromatic aberrations will not be wel corrected, and you will have oversampled CA artifacts.</p>

<p>Second: Use <em>only</em> the "neutral" (NX, C1) or "linear" or "camera linear" (LR) settings for capture profile. Capture to 16-bit TIF, and feed these to your HDR application. You need to use the most linear numbers you can get. The interpolation software assumes what is coming in is in linear space. Otherwise, the computations are skewed.</p>

<p>My favorite "cheap" 35mm lens for full frame right now -- the 35mm f/2.8 PC Nikkor N. $250. </p>

<p>You new Df users: those non-AI (AI-destroying) versions are out there for a song.</p>