ulrich_brandl

<p>I have bought my D600 about two months after its release and did not encounter any dust or oil spots. As I have read a few reports on the dust/oil issue I took test shots with f16 or f22 against a homogenous background about once a week. I didn't see any dust spots even with extreme contrast enhancement in Photoshop I gave up this practice after a few weeks (> 2000 total shots on my D600). AFAIK there is no statistical data how many D600 were affected and which efforts have been necessary to get the problem fixed. I'm not sure if a handful frustrated users generated too much buzz...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jose, I can't remember a single lens where adding VR (or IS at Canon) lead to a decreased performance. Even stellar lenses as Canon's f4 70-200 or Nikon's 105 macro became trumped (by a little margin) by their stabilized sisters. In theory the increased number of elements and surfaces might be an issue but obviously the latest coatings and design technologies seem to compensate this. But in the end I share your concerns about size and weight (and price ?). </p>

<p>Hi, if you shoot from the same point and with the same lens, you get more objects in your frame in FX than in DX. The whole sensor area is used for calcuating the white balance. If you don't shoot an uniform area this might lead to different results in WB. At least a possible explanation for your observation.</p>

<p>If you are happy with the focal range of the 35-70mm on DX, want to keep f 2.8 and don't want to mortgage your house you should have a closer look at the Tamron 2.8 28-75mm. Optically it is a very good performer on DX and has very little flare problems. It is very small and light for its optical specifications. You wrote, you are hesitating to buy 3rd party lenses as their resale value is low - but this lens has a considerably lower price than the Nikon 24-70. Even if you loose a higher percentage, you loose a smaller absolute amount on resale. Sample variations aren' t a big issue wit this lens today, its is in production since several years, Tamron should have fixed possible manufacturing problems. </p>

<p>I would not go with option two, especially you have listed 2 DX lenses (11-16, 55-300). The DX option is nice if you already have DX lenses but buying new... ? I don't know, however, if you want to keep your D7000, in this case the story might look different. Your list #1 looks good - but I wouldn't compare these options as a whole. Obviously the 35 + 85mm seems to be set. I have the 85 1.8G - this is a very fine lens. The Sigma 35 seems to be good, but I would also consider the 50mm 1.4G - it is smaller, lighter, cheaper and in many cases the difference is going one step back or forth (especially if you have wider options). All in all your concept will cover many photographic situations but it is a bunch of big'n heavy equipment with few options to go out lighter.<br>

On the Tele side, I would avoid the cheap (70-300 etc) options on the D800, if you want to get most out out of your camera. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Many thanks again. Kent's post seems to underline that its worth to try the 1.4x TC with the VRII lens. <br>

@Elliot: A 70-300 VR is one of the options I considered too. The problem is that it will add around 500 grams more to my bag when I already carry the 70-200 and only occasionally need more focal length. Clearly, its advantage is that I can go out without the heavy 70-200 when I don't need its speed and still have significant reach. Maybe I will get both on the long run. Currently I seek for a quick adjustment for my needs on the long end after changing from DX to FX. </p>

 

<p>Many thanks for your thorough answers. There are obviously more arguments on the "pro" side. Ilkka has a good point about having better distributed AF points over the frame , but unfortunately my D600 doesn't deliver in this area. OTOH camera bodies come and go. So, finally, I will give the 1,4x TC a try.</p>

<p>Many thanks for your thorough answers. There are obviously more arguments on the "pro" side. Ilkka has a good point about having better distributed AF points over the frame , but unfortunately my D600 doesn't deliver in this area. OTOH camera bodies come and go. So, finally, I will give the 1,4x TC a try.</p>

<p>Does a 1.4x TC bring more image quality on current 24 MP+ FX cameras than cropping ? Cropping by 1.4 results in pixel counts similar to the total pixels of the previous camera generation. The crop usually uses the "sweet spot" of lens sharpness and should be slightly above the results of the same lens on DX. A TC degrades lens performance but you have more pixels (resulting in less enlargement for the same print size). Test sites like photozone.de seem to have given up testing lens-TC combos. Ok, there is still the advantage of better seeing what you shoot - but at the price of one F-stop. I would like to know the personal experiences of those who have tried a TC against cropping on current FX cameras (using quality tele zooms like the 2.8 70-200).</p>

<p>No doubt, your 50 and 85mm lens will shine on the D600. But if your passion is shooting pictures of your now 6 month old son, you will long for a good zoom lens in the near future. Quickly moving, playing children can be photographed with fix focals, but it is much easier with a zoom. A good 2.8 17-50(55) from Nikon or Tamron would solve many of the problems you describe and work very well for shooting playing children in the coming years. If you go for FX, comparable lenses are much heavier and much more expensive. The distribution of AF sensors in the D600 over the picture frame is inferior to the D7000 - maybe an issue in shooting children in action. If you have other reasons to buy an FX camera (Viewfinder, bokeh, high ISO) then go for the D600, but I would not base the decision primarily on children photos.</p>

<p>I have my D600 about 3 weeks now, no dust problems seen yet. May be a temporary dust contamination in one of the assembling facilities. This might require more cleaning than the sensor alone. As all D600 should be under warranty at the moment it shouldn't be a problem to get cleaned affected cameras professionally.</p>

<p>Autofocussing macro subjecs is a matter of luck with ANY lens and ANY camera. Serious macro photography never relies on AF, therefore better AF (in the macro range) is hardly to expect with the AF-S lens. The AF-S is a little more versatile in non macro applications due to its VR and a little faster autofocus. OTOH it is heavy and I doubt that I would carry it around as a general purpose short tele.</p>

<p>A nice controversial discussion - nothing else was to be expected after the release of the MM.<br>

For me the MM fills a very interesting niche - surely interesting only for a few photographers. This niche cannot be described by sensor resolution or iso performance alone. The unique position lies in the whole system. There is already a B & W only digital back from Phase One, much more expensive (I didn't hear any complaints about Phase One prices) - but its portability doesn't come near to the Leica M. The unique position of the Leica is that it has an extremely high resolution (comparable to 28-30 MPix of color to B&W converted pictures) combined with lenses that support this resolution <em>wide open</em> - and a small lightweight package. You probably will get the same image quality with a Nikon D800 but you probably will need a tripod and a stopped down lens (see the comments on dpreview.com on optimal use of the D800). I also believe that I get the at least the same image quality with my old Bronica and MF film. But you probably get the same technical image quality with a Leica handheld used with a wide open Leica or Zeiss lens. Thrown in more plasticity by a nice background blur. This offers new aspects for a few creative people. I doubt that the introduction of this camera will cause any changes in the mass market. I also doubt that other camera makers will follow with comparable options for 1/5 of the price. Such a niche product is only interesting for a few photographers and a camera maker who is used to live in a niche (and is able to sell its products at such a price level).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you consider a f 2.8 lens, take a closer look at the Zeiss C Biogon 2.8/35mm. It is small, very sharp, certainly better than most older lenses you mentioned - and not too expensive (around 650 Euro new). The Contax is optically very similar but AFAIK it doesn't have an M-mount. The CV 1.4/35 suffers from focus shift - it is usable (but not great) at f 1.4 but between 2.0 and 4.0 the focal plane is somewhere else as the rangefinder suggests. Further stopped down DOF compensates for that. Many people can live with this and are happy. </p>

<p>Dont't forget that the Fuji is APS-C and the M9 (or a possible BW version) is full frame. Canon and Nikon photographers are ready to pay a big premium for full frame too. Full frame is the way to get the best out of good lenses producing sharpness wide open paired with a smooth bokeh. Why pay 5K+ for a lens and then giving up what makes it shine. I don't doubt that the Fuji X Pro 1 is a good camera and the 35mm f1.4 Fujinon is a good lens but I never would buy this camera for shooting with Leica glass.</p>

<p>I would think twice before entering the adapter game today. In the early days of m4/3 prices of legacy lenses were low and only few m4/3 lenses available. Now you can get very good primes designed for m4/3, some at reasonable prices. I have tried several 50mm primes, Olympus (OM 1.8/50) and Zeiss (ZM Planar 2/50) glass among these. None of these could keep up with the current m4/3 45mm Zuiko, both in terms of sharpness and bokeh. The only convincing results I have seen were those with Leica M glass, but these lenses have insane prices, even used. The only adapted lens I sometimes use is a 90mm Leica lens, but this comes from my existing collection...</p>

<p>Reuben, don't worry about this lens. The 55-200VR is absolutely good enough for portraits if you don't shoot against light sources or ugly backgrounds. It works well with the D7000 (I have both). I even disagree that you have to stop down. The lens has good center sharpness even full open, the edges improve by stopping down, no issue in portrait photography. The advantages of the 2.8/70-200 or the 1.4/85 are more background blur and a nicer transition between in focus and out-of-focus areas, especially in the 85mm. The importance of these features greatly depend on the space and the ways you can control the background.</p>

<p>I wouldn't carry one of these lenses for travel and landscape detail. Since a few months I use the plasticky 55-200mm VR (on a D7000) for this purpose and my neck and shoulder are happy about this. It is lighter than the 70-300 too. Think of a day where you carry your photo equipment from dawn to dusk. As landscape is usually shot well stopped down I don't see any issues with speed, focus and image quality with this lens. Even occasional wide open shots of non-landscape subjects are absolutely ok (good center sharpness, edges anyway out of focus in most cases). The best lens is the lens you have in your bag when you need it instead of the hotel room. And if it gets damaged or stolen, the financial loss is very small.</p>

<p>In the early 80's I used an Olympus 1.8/50mm with a reverse adapter on my OM-2. The results were ok, handling was kind of cumbersome, so I bought a "true" macro lens a few years later. The major advantage of older all manual lenses is thet you can keep control of the aperture while reversed (no connection to the electronic contacts in the lens mount). This is, of course, not only true for the Olympus lens, you can use older manual Nikon or Canon lenses too. But think twice before buying an OM-10 to get such a lens and use it for film shooting. The OM-10 is a crippled entry level camera (= no manual exposure time control without an additional adapter) with a build quality far below the legendary OM-1 to OM-4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Clean the film carefully and hand spotting, avoiding 'reduction' artifacts, in PS is manageable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true for material that is otherwise ok (e.g. no scratches). If you digitize old slide collections hardware supported restauration (ICE) is very helpful. Such techniques do not degrade the impage quality as pure software solutions. For me, this is also one of the best reasons to use a scanner instead of a camera with a slide reproduction set. The Nikon 5000 and 9000 do a very good job here.</p>

<p>Samantha,<br /> I doubt that a 24mm f 2.8 wideangle will bring something really new to you. There are three main reasons to shoot with prime lenses: Speed, image quality and weight (in this order). You wrote that you have the 18-55mm kit lens, so you actually HAVE a 24mm lens. 24mm is around the middle of the zoom range, the "sweet spot" where distortion and sharpness of your kit lens is at its optimum. So, the Sigma 24mm (which is not one of the very best primes) will hardly increase image quality. The kit lens is very lightweight too, there is hardly a weight advantage. So it comes down to about 1 f-stop in speed (1:2.8 vs. about 1:4). In most shooting situations one stop advantage can be replaced by a higher ISO. For shooting with selective sharpness f 2.8 on a 24mm lens doesn't bring too much. If you are frequently shooting under lower light conditions, especially moving subjects or in permanent struggle with image noise, one stop can be valuable. But then, a f 2.8 zoom, replacing your kit lens brings more flexibility (the Tamron 2.8 17-50mm is quite affordable), saving you from buying a bunch of primes. A really big advantage in terms of speed are the f 1.4 primes, but they are very expensive and heavy.</p>

<p>Greg, as you used Pinncale I assume, you have a PC, not a MAC.<br /> The ViewNX video editor is extremely restricted. Depending on the processor type it allows only the inclusion of a few clips. The better your PC the less clips can be used, on an i7 you finally can include only two clips. Sound editing is extremely restricted. This all looks like a license problem, intended to keep power users away.<br /> I personally use Sony Vegas Movie Studio 10 (not the pro version) for D7000 HD videos. It works fine, offers rich video and sound editing capabilities and you can download a free, fully functional 30 day trial version. It can produce many video output formats, the HD formats do not show a significant loss during editing. The actual version of Adobe Premiere elemens plays in the same league. Unfortunately I have no experience with newer Pinnacle versions, so I cannot comment on this.</p>

<p>I think, Photozone does a very good job. They use objective measurements of distortion and sharpness (MTF), have a look on the most commonly observed aberrations and a healthy view of more subjective critria like bokeh. Of course, these are not all aspects of lens quality. They do not systematically measure close-up performance (although you may find some hints on this). Some "optical grourmet" aspects like rendering transitions bteween in- and out-of-focus cannot easily been measured. Nor does the objective testing fulfill "true" scientific standards - the tests are based on one, sometimes on two samples. This doesn't allow any statistically based statement about sample variations. Still, I trust these informations more than purely subjective lens reviews. When I plan to buy a lens I ususally combine informations of several sites, this might compensate partially the sample variation bias. If a lens has a major design flaw (like most "superzooms"), you will find a relatively congruent picture of reprted problems.<br>

With a few exceptions, however, I find that lens tests are generally over-estimated. A today's lens with minor weaknesses ususally can produce such good image quality that you rarely can blame the lens fo a bad photo.</p>

 

<p>I repeatedly sold used photographic equipment vie ebay in Europe which often resulted in a stunningly high selling price. That was more tha a compensation for the ebay fees. In Europe prices for new gear are relatively high in some countries. So the buyer and the seller can benefit from such a deal, more than from a national platform.</p>

<p>Thanks to all, you have convinced me that the 85 doesn't seem to be the way to go. I will throw a closer look on the Tokina (I wasn't aware of its existence) and the Tamron and go with one of these.<br>

Happy shooting<br>

Ulrich</p>

<p> </p>