alastair_anderson

<p>Everyone's correct. Someone put it pretty well in another thread I thought. The greater pixel density of the D800 (compared to the D700) means that it's like getting an additional free tele lens. However given the cost of the D800 "free" is overstating it a bit!</p>

<p>"Get good with the one you choose." Can't argue with that.<br>

Once again, thanks everyone. This was very informative and useful to me and hopefully to others too.</p>

<p>Capture NX2<br />Photoshop<br />Photoshop Elements<br />Lightroom<br />CS6<br />Photomatrix<br />DXO<br />Thank you all. And, Mac, I appreciate your words of wisdom. It probably does make sense for me to stick with Capture NX2, given that I'm more familiar with dodging and burning than I am with software. But it's always good to hear what people who know about these things recommend. For the record, I'm not buying more cameras. I have one digital camera. My D3 was stolen in 2010. You shouldn't be prejudiced against 'newer', by the way; digital cameras are getting better and better! I don't want to turn this into a polemic, but your anti laptop line seems somewhat facile; there are some capable laptops these days. We're living in the digital age!<br />:)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andy, yes I'll do that. I don't normally use a Mac but have access to my son's Macbook Pro.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the prompt replies. I have downloaded the trial version of Capture NX 2. It's somewhat slow on my laptop but I always knew that I would have to upgrade my computer. I'll take a look at Photoshop as well.</p>

<p>Hi, I'm out of my depth in the digital world. I used to process all my D3 files with Capture NX which shipped with the camera. This programme can't cope with D800 raw files. Can someone advise me on the most appropriate software. Should I buy Capture NX2 or would Photoshop be better?</p>

<p>Thanks for the prompt and very helpful responses (particularly Shun's). The self video application was not purely narcissism. We don't have a ref. so I have to point out where my opponent is cheating! I'm only half joking. He's a very good friend of mine but the competition on the court is brutal.</p>

<p>Hi, I hadn't read through the user's manual and so didn't realise that movies with the D800 are limited to 20 minute shots. I filmed myself playing squash this evening; games last over an hour. I think I read somewhere that the D800 recording limit was an hour so was disappointed to get only 20 minutes. Is anyone aware of a lesser quality option that will allow longer recording time? I gather that the constraint is over-heating circuitry. If I had a cameraman how long would he have to wait before starting to record again?</p>

<p>Love the ospreys, spoonbill (pink? South African ones are white!) and bulbul.</p>

<p>Joe, there's nothing scary about using a shift lens. If you want to take advantage of tilt, you require some knowledge, time and patience. For certain pictures there's no other way to do it without using a view camera.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your help, everyone.</p>

<p>I have the D800 and I also bought a 70-200 VRII and a 1.4TC. I haven't made my mind up about the PC lens yet. While I appreciate the advantages of Sheimfplug etc. I really only need the shift so that I can get the tops of buildings in the frame and avoid converging verticals so I may save some money and get one of the non tilt lenses.</p>

<p>Well, I've made my mind up, at least with regard to the tele lens. Today I took possession of the D800 and I also bought a 70-200 VR II and a 1.4 II TC, had to part with a lot of good Leica glass to do it. Jury is still our re the shift lens. Thanks very much for all your help.</p>

<p>I lost two lenses when my D3 was stolen: the 70-300 AF-S VR and an old F3.5 pc Nikkor. I will be buying a D800 and would like to replace the two lenses. I've read threads about the 24 tilt/shift lens and am quite keen to get one of those although it's still not entirely clear to me whether the amount that it can be shifted is limited by the D800 flash housing. So that's my first question.</p>

<p>The second is: does anyone know how the 70-300 stands up to the increased resolution of the D800. I was very happy with the performance of this lens on the D3.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Wasn't there going to be a big Leica announcement today? I understood that it may well have been about an M10?</p>

 

<p>I think the f4 super angulon is inherently more prone to flare simply because it has more elements. Without checking up I think the f4 has 9 elements whereas the 3.4 only has 8 or perhaps it is 7. I think most people would agree that the f3.4 is a much better lens. I hadn't really thought about the aperture blades but I hardly think this is a significant issue.</p>

<p>Jean-Marie, I have both the f3.4 and the f4 super-angulons. Bokeh is not an issue for me because with this focal length I almost invariably want everthing in focus. My f3.4 s-a is like new whereas the f4 version is not. I find that the slower version has a lot more flare but this may simply be down to the fact that it is not completely clean. The only reason that I use it is because the faster lens has a bayonet mount and won't work on my screw mount cameras.</p>

<p> The first R version of the super-angulon was optically identical to the rangefinder f3.4. If I'm not mistaken this version protruded too far into the body of the camera and required the mirror to be raised; you have to use an external finder. The f4 version works as a conventional SLR lens. By the way this latter lens has an excellent reputation.</p>

<p>I ought to have mentioned that the f3.4 super angulon is considerably better than the f4. Vignetting is significantly reduced in the faster lens.</p>

<p>I currently own all the lenses that you mention other than 3: the 28 elmarit, the 28 hektor and the 35 f2.8 summaron. They have different applications. I like them all for different reasons. The summarex is quite rare and rather heavy. The 35 elmar is tiny. I do quite a lot of wide angle stuff and therefore love the super angulon. (The 28 summaron is also good but a little slow.) I have the 4th version 35 summicron which is excellent but I also love the signature of the 3.5 summaron. My favourite standard lens is not mentioned - the non collapsible summicron. The 50 elmars are excellent too if you get a clean one. I have both 135's mentioned and personally prefer the hektor. I too like the little f4 90 and prefer it to the faster elmarit. The f2 90 has been most useful to me, however, because of its speed.</p>

<p>Sure, Robert. As I say it's a subjective impression. I'll have to read up about it, perhaps look at some MTF data. You may well be right. I do like the lens because it really is incredibly sharp. I think it's my sharpest lens - including a whole bunch of Leitz lenses. But I have reservations about iq nonetheless.</p>

 

<p>My subjective impression of this lens (one of only 3 AF Nikon lenses that I own since 2 were stolen along with my D3) is that distortion is significant. And I'm not talking about vignetting which is something entirely different.</p>

<p>Robert, this lens can hardly be described as distortion free. It's amazingly sharp but certainly not distortion free.</p>

<p>Shun, thanks for posting the Thom Hogan link; it makes interesting reading, particularly the 3 areas that he queries, viz the mismatched card slots, diminished capacity battery and untried sensor quality. We'll have to wait and see. But although I'd still love to have a digital rangefinder, to me the D4 sounds as though it might just be the perfect camera.</p>

<p>M9</p>

<p>Bob Dein,<br>

Great picture of McEnroe!</p>

<p>I and at least one of my friends would be delighted if Nikon would produce a camera with a 'bigger than point and shoot' sensor with traditional manual aperture and shutter controls.<br />My ideal camera is a Leica M9 equivalent with Nikon reliability.</p>