iwong

<p>Under outdoor daylight bright conditions, any of the current digital cameras will produce acceptable images. But under all other circumstances, a small DSLR will walk all over the compact digicams, period. Sorry I'm not too fond of any compact digicams from Nikon. If you need a portable camera, look at Canon, Panasonic, or Fuji, if good dynamic range appeals to you. But keep in mind, for their portability, a lot of everything else is greatly compromised. When you get into Canon G11 territory, a small DSLR starts to make more sense in terms of size and price. The Olympus/Panasonic micro 4/3 mirrorless offerings might also be worthy of consideration.</p>

<p>There are two reasons for using a longer lens and backing off as far as practicable for portraiture: 1) you make the model feel more comfortable; 2) perspective: the effect is more flattering since a longer lens compresses near to far objects, as opposed to using a wider lens which exaggerates the nose and distorts the face.<br>

In your case, the 24-70/2.8 is not really long enough for head/shoulder portrait, the 70-200/2.8 is more appropriate.<br>

However, for the price of a 70-200/2.8 (you mentioned VR1, not VR2), it might be more cost effective to research if a 105/2DC or 135/2DC, plus the 50/1.4 and 35/2 might be the cheaper alternative. 24mm might just be too wide for portraiture anyway. The max aperture of at least f/2 of those lenses could be of use to you since you also get greater separation of background, which is desirable in portraiture.</p>

<p>It would be nice if Nikon corrected/optimized the new lens' performance to be better near infinity focus. According to Thom Hogan's review of the old lens, it was optimized for near focus distances. IMHO this being a perfect wildlife/safari lens, far distance focus performance is more important.</p>

<p>Don't discount the lack of AF. If the purpose of AF were for convenience when handing the camera to a stranger to take your picture, you can easily frame and preset the focus on a MF lens, then tell the person to stand in the same spot and take the picture. In fact, AF can sometimes be a hinderance. When the person using the camera doesn't know anything about photography, s/he could just land the AF area on a background and the picture comes out OOF.</p>

<p>You can easily fix barrel distortion in software. The 24/2.8 AF-D prime is notoriously weak on corner performance, namely softness, which is more difficult to correct in PP.</p>

 

<p>I don't understand your problem. What do you mean by "wasn't showing the subjects at infinity in good contrast at 28mm"? What's your aperture setting and shutter speed? What was the light and where it's coming from? Do you have a sample picture where you can show us the problem?<br>

AFAIK, micro (macro), or close focusing lenses, are optimized for close distances. But they certainly can be used when focused at infinity, and most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a macro lens focused at infinity and another non-macro lens in a similar FL focused at infinity.<br>

Maybe your problem is not the lens.</p>

<p>If it is real impact damage, it can only be two things: it was damaged before you bought it (but didn't realize it until it's too late), or somebody damaged it after you have shipped it off for repair, and the repair person thought the issue being addressed is caused by the impact damage, and is charging you for the repairs.<br>

Well you live and learn. It is customary in Hong Kong for buyers to examine (inspect and test) EVERYTHING, even supposedly NEW stuff, before handing over money. Don't do business with any retailers who refuse to open up the packaging and let you examine the goods. Well maybe except an iPod, but this is even true for mobile phones. Inspect and test everything. If you have paid your money and walked out of the store with your purchase, your chances of getting a problem resolved is very slim.</p>

<p>If your judgement criteria is purely based on printed photo or viewing on screen, my answer is a reserved 'no', unless you shoot in high ISO (e.g. above ISO800) a lot. The D90 is easily 1 stop or so above the D50 in high ISO cleanliness. Otherwise you are not getting much. 6MP vs. 12MP, well if you don't print big frequently, 6MP is enough for good 8x10" prints. Of course there are the bigger LCD screen, video, and improved AF, but I wouldn't call these essential.</p>

 

<p>I find the lower mAH rating batteries tend to give faster flash recycle times, but the number of available flashes is lower, due to the lower rating and lower internal resistance. The Energizer 2300mAH rechargeables were the worst I have used. The Panasonic 1900mAH and 2050mAH were much better.</p>

 

<p>Think whether you intend to buy a CAMERA, or a SYSTEM. As others have pointed out, Nikon (or Canon, for that matter) as a system, allows you tremendous options in terms of lens selection and availability of accessories that is unmatched by others. For most consumers who just buy a camera with the standard 18-55 kit lens and never take it off, I am sure any of the offerings would satisfy you in terms of features to price ratio, depending on what's more important to you.</p>

 

<p>I'll admit I haven't followed Nikon's Coolpix line for a while, because I think all of them made in the last few years or so were just downright mediocre. I'll check out the Panasonics though. If you don't need telephoto, the LX3 is worth a look.</p>

<p>Remote only means the sync cable is replaced by air. It's really whether the flash itself is in some kind of TTL mode where the camera can tell the flash to stop when it has reached the right exposure. If the flash is in manual mode, you dial in the power level you think you'll need, based on the exposure requirements your camera settings may need, i.e. f/stops, ISO and shutter.</p>

 

<p>Lay a ruler flat, longitudinally, on a table. Stand up, or set your camera on a tripod, and shoot, with the axis of the lens making a roughly 45-degree angle to horizontal. Pick single focus area, and single servo (not dynamic, not AF-C). Ideally the focus area is the middle one. Keep the ruler in the center of the frame and shoot, then check to see if the sharpest part of the ruler is the area you focused on.<br>

Let's say you used a 12" ruler with the 0" mark closest to you, and you focused on the 6" mark. If the 6" mark is not clear in the image but 5" is, you have front focus. Similarly if 7" is sharper, you have back focus.</p>

 

<p>Buy the D700 and use the AFS 35/1.8 lens on it (as a 35mm focal length lens, i.e. FX, not in DX crop mode) until you can save up the funds for more FX lenses. I know the 35/1.8 is DX but it can be used on FX. There will be severe corner vignetting of course but by f/4, it is pretty much easily fixable by the D700's vignetting-correction menu option, or in post-processing. I know it sounds counterintuitive to use a f/1.8 lens at f/4 when you need its low-light capability, but as you know, the D700's high ISO cleanliness more than makes up for it compared to the D200.</p>

 

<p>What kind of gear, how many, and how heavy? I can't imagine if you only have a D40x, the 18-55 kit lens and maybe a small flash, they'd raise an issue? That's another story if you have two D3's, a 600/4 lens and various fast f/2.8 zooms. The airline's website usually has a section on the weight and dimension limitation on your carry-on baggage, so it's worthwhile to check it out and make sure your stuff is within the limits before you arrive at the airport.</p>

 

<p>I have a Nikon P3 point-n-shoot which will be used for casual snapshots and short video clips, but I wouldn't trust it as the only camera due to the excessive noise at any ISO higher than 200 and the lack of wide-angle. Yes it sounds like I have a preference for the 14-24, lack of versatility notwithstanding. Remember not so long ago we were content with a fixed-lens 35mm pocket film camera and the equivalent of 21-36mm (on DX) nowadays would not be too bad. It would be the first lens in the bag and it looks like the 105 Micro would be next. The 35/1.8 DX would fill the gap nicely in the middle, and the weight and price of admission are attractive.<br>

The 17-55 while perfect as an event lens, I found that it is just not quite wide enough for interior shots.</p>

<p>I will be travelling with my wife, and with a travel company. So time is non-flexible. But at least I won't have to worry about the logistics of driving and finding my own way, and mostly don't have to lug equipment from place to place. I'd imagine we will mostly be transported by motor coach from attraction to attraction. However I still would want to travel light since for security reasons I don't want to have too many fast f/2.8 lenses with me, and they get heavy very quickly.</p>

<p>The 35/1.8 DX lens sounds interesting BTW, I think it will complement the 14-24/2.8 very well.</p>

<p>Thanks for your suggestions so far. I wish I have a fast prime to work with, but new lenses are out of the question for now. To answer some of your questions, I'd like to shot city scapes, famous landmarks and buildings, and mountain scenary. (I know, anything a first time tourist might shoot.) This trip is intended to be a "highlights" trip where interesting localities are noted and returned to for a more in-depth visit in the future. I am more inclined to have the 14-24 with me this time, despite its size and weight. I also might be tempted to bring the 105 and leave the 17-55 behind since I am getting bored of the "normal" focal lengths.</p>

 

<p>I am going to Europe in September. The countries/cities I will be travelling to will include London (UK), Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, and Paris (France). I currently have the Nikon D300 and the following lenses: 14-24/2.8, 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 105/2.8VR. I figured I'll leave the 70-200 at home since I won't be shooting wildlife. I also want to travel light. The debate I'm having right now is whether I should bring just the 14-24, just the 17-55 or both. Would the 105 Micro come in handy for flowers, given I'll be going in September?</p>

<p>The 14-24 will have an equivalent of 21-36mm on DX, while the 17-55 is about 26-85mm. Now if I leave the 17-55 at home, will I be missing the long end, given the 14-24 only goes to about 36mm equivalent? Would the 105 Micro be a substitute for the long end, if I'll also be shooting flowers? (I know the focal lengths are different, but I think there's not a lot of difference between 55 and 105, at least not as big as 14 to 17). Hmm... decisions decisions...</p>

 

<p>It is not very common for Hong Kong camera retailers to sell used gear. But specialized camera shops might still have older stock sitting around which the shop should be happy to get rid of. Avoid the big chains like Fortress, Broadway, Chung Yuen, etc and go to Mongkok. Specifically, Sai Yeung Choi Street San Tung Street has a whole bunch of such specialized shops (along with the chain stores). Get off at the Mongkok MTR station and you should be able to find these streets easily. A good shop is Man Shing (and Wing Shing, same owner). This is where local enthusiasts shop. It's like Hong Kong's B&H.</p>

 

<p>I have both the 105VR Micro and the 70-200VR, as well as a D300. I find that with action shots, nothing beats the 70-200 in terms of versatility, because it is a zoom. The 105VR Micro is a macro lens, so the AF is optimized towards close range focusing. It is not to say that near-infinity focusing is bad, but I found that occasionally it hunts just a bit more than my liking (yes I have set the focus range switch). This is especially when paired with a D200, where the focusing points have more gaps between them. The D300 is state-of-the-art and the problem is pretty much mitigated.<br>

Unless you're pixel peeping, you're not going to find sharpness differences between the two lenses. The same applies to bokeh. However the edge must go to the 105 for the former and 70-200 for the latter.<br>

In a perfect world, you'd want to get both :)</p>

<p>Don't forget, the 12-24 is still DX. Only the 14-24/2.8 is FX. So if you plan to move to FX, you have not much use of a 12-24/4 with it.</p>

 

<p>Whew! I just sold my D80 to my co-worker who is selling his D40 because the lenses he wanted wouldn't AF on the latter. The 35mm was one of them.<br>

This 35/1.8DX is a perfect lens for those who got into the DSLR game (D40/x, D60) in the first place to shoot pictures of their babies/kids and lamented that the kit zooms were too slow, and the fast 2.8 zooms were too expensive/heavy.</p>

 

<p>"so would you say that the two lenses (70-200 and 105) deliver similar results at those focal lenghts?"<br>

I would say so, without going into pixel peeping and spliting hair. Both are superb lenses. Even though the 105/2.8VR is optimized for close range focus, it is still more than a match to the 70-200 at portrait distance. I don't have a D700 so what my experiences are will be strictly limited to DX, but I would say they are comparable.<br>

<br /></p>

<p>First of all, I think the saying that micro (or macro) lenses are "too sharp" for portraiture is both urban legend and out-dated. Whether facial flaws will show up depends more on your lighting than the relative sharpness of your lens. Nowadays, softening effects can be easily and quickly applied in post-processing to make this a moot point anyway. Finally, I don't think you can have a "too sharp" lens.<br>

With that out of the way, I also think comparing the 105/2.8VR Micro to the 70-200/2.8VR is unfair. The 105/2.8 is a prime macro lens, optimized for close range focus, whereas the 70-200/2.8 is a more versatile zoom lens for portrait distance shooting. If I were you I'd stick with the 70-200/2.8 for portraiture, and only get the micro if you want to shoot close, like flowers, for which this lens is optimized for. There may have been some reports of the 70-200 not being very good on FX where the corners are too soft, but this is relatively unimportant in portraits. Arguably the micro is better in that regard, but I wouldn't go buy a lens just on that.<br>

I have both and sometimes the reason I take the 105 micro instead of the 70-200 for portraits is due to size and weight. In any case, I can say that the 105 micro is simply not "too sharp" for people pictures.</p>