peter_nelson1

<i>Of course if you really believe a DX camera gives better resolution than a full frame camera then I'm happy to swap my D80 for the D3.. </i><br><br>

Your D80 doesn't have the a small enough sensor element pitch. Look, at least <b>try</b> to follow the math and technical details.

<i>We all 'got' the question.

But he (and you) are just wrong. Which everybody (apart from you realises..) </i><br><br>

Feel free to explain why you think so.

<i>Ok, here's my 2 cents worth: The cone of light from the DX lens is smaller in diameter than the cone of light from the D lens.</i><br><br>

The D2X is a pro body so I don't imagine most people shooting with it were using DX glass. <br><br>

<i>So the Photos from my D3 have better color than the photos from my D2hs. The speed with low noise is also a great advantage over the D2hs.</i><br><br> I'm not sure how the D2HS got introduced into this discussion - it's old 4.1 MP design in a DX form factor - the worst of both worlds.

<i>an interesting question. but were i fortunate enough to own a D3, i'd be doing something besides contemplating pixel densities.</i><br><br>

The question has more than academic significance because if my math and reasoning are correct, the implication is that, for wildlife photography, a D300 with a 300mm f/4 should equal or outperform a D3 with a 400mm f/4 under good lighting conditions, but at a fraction of the size and weight. Since size and weight are major considerations in wildlife photography this is worth noting.

<i>The D300 produces excellent quality ISO 3200 captures compared to older Nikon dSLRs in my experience.</i><br><br>

But that's just grading on the curve, because the older Nikon DSLR's were gawdawful horrible at ISO 3200. If 3200 looked like ISO 200 what yould you call it, "super-duper excellent"? I propose that the old Nikon DSLR's at 3200 were "really bad" and the D300 is "less bad".<br><br>

<i>You can't shoot a large crowd at f2, if you want everyone in focus. Be careful what kind of advice your giving.</i><br><br> During the 1960's I used to shoot riots and demonstrations at night using Tri-X film and Pentax gear. Almost all my shots were taken at f/2 or f/1.8, depending on the lens, and I got newspaper-worthy photos. <br><br>

You do have to choose your angle and composition carefully, but he's shooting from 30' ABOVE them so he has advantages I never had.

I'm not sure if other people here "get" your question, so here's how I interpret it . . .

With the same number of photosites on a smaller die the center-to-center distance of the photosites is smaller so, in theory, they should be able to record more detail. To be specific the D2X haa a pitch of just 5.5 microns. The D3 has an 8.46 micron pitch. So the D2X can record significantly more detail with the same lens.

Now, as a practical matter can you take advantage of this? The 5.5 micron pitch works out to roughly 90 linepairs per mm (lpmm). The average consumer kit zoom probably can't do much better than 60-70 lpmm so you won't see any advantage. But a good, sharp prime like the Nikkor 105 f/2.5 or 85 f/2 is perfectly capable of resolving 90 lpmm or better.

We often scold people here who refer to "cropping factor" as "magnification factor" but this is one of the rare instances where it's potentially true. Based on the numbers, I would expect, in a careful test that the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 on the D2x (or D300) to record approximately the same amount of detail as the the 300mm f/2.8 on the D3, because of the finer photosite pitch of the DX sensors.

<i>Try Hunts Photo and Video. Joe Smith</i><br><br>

No, they don't have it either. In the last 24 hours I've contacted a dozen dealers and they're all out of stock and several of them commented they haven't seen this lens in months. <br><br>

I called NikonUSA and they wouldn't commit about whether it's still being shipped to the US! They did say that "it has not been discontinued". Since this is a Nikon forum I was hoping someone here with experience buying Nikon products could comment on what they think might be going on. Could Nikon be withholding this from the US market because of the weak dollar?

BTW, I agree with the advice about flash - it won't help you here.

I suggest getting the fastest glass you can - pack a few f/2 or f/1.8 primes (don't drop them on anyone changing lenses). Definitely use a tripod. Besides speed, the other advantage of primes is that they are sharper wide-open.

If the crowd isn't moving around too much you might find that a slightly longer exposure at a slightly lower ISO would produce better results, e.g., 1/15th at ISO 800 -vs- 1/30th at ISO 1600.

<i>ISO 3200 looks excellent on the D300.</i><br><br>

We must have very different concepts of "excellent".

Whether you will be satisfied at ISO 1600 or 3200 depends on what you plan to do with these photos, how large you plan to display them, etc. This camera has a 12 MP DX sensor and Nikon has done the best they can under those circustances but there's only so much of a rabbit you can pull out of that hat.

Nikon's in-camera noise reduction kicks in around 800 and the images become progressively smearier above that. I've been running all kinds of tests on the D300 during the last week and my results match very well the test images posted on the web by various users. Don't get me wrong: the D300 is a noticable improvement over the D200 in high-ISO noise But just don't expect miracles from a DX sensor. If you intend to shoot at ISO 1600-3200 you should be renting a D3.

Also, I'm not sure what Bruce was trying to demonstrate by posting a 492x327 image - at that scale a D100 at ISO 1600 would look clean.

My suggestion is to shoot with in-camer noise reduction turned OFF, and then use a tool like NeatImage or Noise Ninja in the PP, because they do less smearing than Nikon's in-camera algorithm.

<i>Did you get the 24-70mm?</i><br><br>

In fact I got TWO just in the last week! (see my response to your other thread)

<i>The 24-70mm has not been available for a few weeks - not at the retailers I deal with. I have been hoping that Nikon has slowed production to correct the numerous QA issues that have plagued this lens; issues like vignetting/fall-off, field curvature, and front focusing. BR seems to think it's a stellar lens - maybe the up-and-coming lenses will be. This is what I'm hoping and holding out for.</i><br><br>

I got mine on Saturday and spent the weekend testing it on a tripod with test targets and it appears to be flawless - sharp edge-to-edge, accurate focussing, excellent contrast.<br><br>

And BTW, that price at Cameta/Amazon is a complete rip-off. I paid MSRP at Roberts; that was also the price at B&H and I know someone who bought his at B&H last week and his arrived the day before mine. Maybe the people who are spreading the rumors of this lens being hard to get are working for Cameta so they can attract desperate/lazy buyers to their high prices.<br><br>

BTW, most of the major mail-order places will let you add your email to a list so when it arrives you can get an email. That's how the guy who bought his at B&H did it. I just called Roberts on the 'phone and they had one.

The Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 is <b>NOT</b> a hard lens to get ahold of! I've bought TWO in the last week from Roberts - UPS smashed up the box on the first one so I had Roberts ship me out a new one that very day so that there would be no danger they would ship out the old lens in a new box.<br><br>

During that same time B&H had it in stock many times. And when I was checking, Samy's also had it in stock. It comes and goes but it never goes away for long. On the Nikon forums I participate in LOTS of people have bought this lens recently. So I don't know what people are talking about when they say it's hard to get.

Why is the Nikkor 300 mm f/4 so hard to stock?

A few weeks ago I decided to buy a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 300 AF-S f/4. The former is

a very popular lens and every photography forum is filled with threads about it.

I've watched it go in and out of stock many times at Roberts and B+H, but every

time it goes out of stock it comes back in quickly. I've actually managed to buy

TWO of them from Roberts in that time because UPS banged up the shipping box on

my first one.

But during that whole time the 300 AF-S f/4 has remained OUT of stock at both

stores, as well as Ritz and KEH. (these are my preferred vendors) What's up with

this? Why is this lens so hard to get ahold of? Is there any way to guess when

we'll see more of these?

Thanks in advance for any insights.

Speaking as someone who travels a lot with camera gear, here's another good reason to not go nuts with gigundo glass . . .

Check out the table here . . . http://www.thetravelinsider.info/travelaccessories/internationalcarryonluggageallowances.htm

It's true that they don't ALWAYS enforce these limit but I saw a guy in line in front of me boarding a British Air flight a couple of years ago pulled aside, get his backpack weighed (which didn't look any bigger than mine!) and told he had to put it in the checked luggage!

Big glass is heavy, so with a 500mm f/4, a few other smaller lenses and a couple of bodies you're over the limit on many airlines even if you DON'T pack a book or two, a change of underwear, and a few other travel essentials.

You should be reviewing test reports of the lenses you have in mind, looking especially at edge sharpness at your desired aperture. It doesn't matter if the lens has a 60 degree FOV or 100 degree FOV if the outer 10 or 20 degrees are soft or subject to excessive coma (a common problem with WA's). Also look at light falloff. Needless to say, you should stick to primes in this focal length range if edge IQ is paramount.

WRT shooting group portraits, I don't recommend WA's - - too much perspective distortion and edge fuzzies unless that's the effect you're going for. It's better to choose a less wide lens and shoot from farther away so everything stays rectilinear. People always forget that a group portrait is still a portrait and the same principles apply. You wouldn't use a WA in the studio for an individual portrait, would you?

Are you sure that 84 degree FOV is with the D50? (keeping in mind the cropping factor)?

Anyway, how did you decide that's the FOV you want?

I would keep the D70, and if I had some money burning a hole in my pocket, buy some good glass. These two photos were taken with a D100 ( also 6 MP) and a Nikkor 180 f/2.8 . . .

http://pnart.com/images/snowyegret0228.jpg

http://pnart.com/images/blher0046.jpg

. . . yah, I know I just posted these links on another discussion here so I still had them in my paste buffer . . .

The 30D is a nice camera, and definitely lower noise at high ISO's than the D70, but it's only 8 MP, which is not enough to justify an upgrade. I just bought a D300 but that's a big price jump. With good glass and good technique you can get a lot out of a D70. My only reservation about it for Alaska is that it's not sealed against dirt and moisture and it's not designed to take any abuse, but neither is the 30D, and to get a camera that is would be a big price jump.

. . . an addendum . . .

You do not need a 500 mm lens to shoot birds. The key to good bird photography is patience and stalking, which is a lot easier to do with a smaller lens. Both of these shots were taken with a 180 f/2.8 . . .

http://pnart.com/images/snowyegret0228.jpg

http://pnart.com/images/blher0046.jpg

. . . I routinely go to birding sites where I see guys set up by the roadside with gazillion-dollar Hubble-space telescopes on tripods that could support a Lincoln Navigator and I'm still filling my frame bigger than they are by just stalking closer.

If you're used to large and medium format you may be happier with the D3 or with one of the full-format Canons. I have a D300, which I love for the purposes I bought it - studio figure, fashion and glamour photography where I can control the lighting, and some wildlife shooting. But its small image sensor definitely reveals itself in various subtle and sometimes annoying ways.

WRT to bird photography, dawn and dusk are when birds are often most active and out and about, but light tends to be more limited and there are more shadows then. The D300 is pretty noise-free up to ISO 400-640, but by ISO 800 the noise becomes quite visible. The in-camera noise reduction kicks in around ISO 800 but can smear the image which can play havoc with fine feather detail.

My suggestion is to plan to buy a fast lens that works well wide open. Some of my best bird photography has been done with a modest Nikkor 180 f/2.8. In additioon to speed, another advantage of shooting wide open is that it allows you to separate the bird from the underbrush and other background. I suggest you do NOT get the 80-400 because it's too slow and is not sharp wide open. I would suggest the 300 f/2.8, or if you're on a tight budget, the 300 f/4.

Juanjo Viagranphoto.net says . . . <br>

<i>if you can stretch your budget a bit get the 60mm 2.8G micro... is absolutely AWESOME, you have the best of both worlds, a SUPER SHARP Micro lens and a SUPER FAST AF lens. </i><br><br>

I'm sorry, but f/2.8 is not "SUPER FAST". I would call f/2.8 and f/2 "Fast" but I wouldn't start adding "super" until you were in the 1's - 1.4, 1.2, etc.<br><br>

Bernhardt Moorephoto.net says . . .

<br><i>

Melinda. Read the post just before yours. Dave Lee just got a 16-45 3.5 and has some pics taken today. Seems to me that the lens performs quite well. Regards, Bernie</i><br><br>

The D80's performance at higher-ISO's is nothing to write home about, so I would aim for a lens that's f/2.8 across its range. I realize that's only a half-stop but every little bit helps.

I have the Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 and it's an outstanding lens. But if it will be your only lens I'm a little concerned that it might not give you much versatility, and it's a little long for general purpose use - equivalent field-of-view to a 90mm lens on a 35mm camera.

How "macro" do you need to get? The Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 will focus to 16 inches which will give you 1:3.7X according to Bjorn Rorslett.

I recently bought a D300 and am looking for a decent 20-something to

70-something zoom to use on it in the studio.

I was planning to buy the Nikkor 24-70 but a recent thread in the FredMiranda

Nikon forum showed what appeared to be serious chromatic aberration. Maybe the

guy just got a bad sample, but for a lens in that price range I was surprised.

I tried Googling for a good, complete review of this lens but I couldn't find

one. Can anyone point me to a thorough review of the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8G ED?

Thanks in advance.

<i>Put camera on a solid tripod, choose a good AF Nikkor lenses (not a consumer grade zoom), pick something with good contrast to it to focus on and shoot tests at all apertures.</i><br><br>

The D300 is a feature-rich, complex product (I was amazed at the user's manual - just in English it's 422 pages!) so what I was hoping to do is concentrate my tests on the areas where the D300 is statistically most likely to have problems. Stuck or hot pixels in the sensor are not uncommon in DSLR's. And people on several websites have reported problems with false battery-low shutdowns. What are some other rocks worth turning over with this beast?

I just bought a new D300 (Ritz $1799.99) I always buy from a local dealer for

easy returnability if it's got sample defects - and I'm looking for suggestions

for simple incoming qual tests.

When I bought my D100 years ago I picked it up at 6:30PM, got home, ran a

quickie set of tests and returned it at 8:30PM because it failed the hot pixel

tests - noticable hot pixels at ISO 800 5 second exposure with the lens cap on

and no NR on. Luckily they had another one in stock which passed my tests.

I assume the D300 could pass that test with flying colors. What's the longest

exposure at ISO 800 (the highest ISO I normally use) without NR I should

reasonably expect to do without seeing hot pixels on the D300? What are some

other quick-and-dirty out of the box incoming qual tests I could do on this

beast? What are the most common sample defects on the D300 I should be on the

lookout for?

Thanks in advance.