mksnowhite

<p>Congrats Lil....you have inspired me to dust off my 8008. :) I still have some tri x in the fride....wonder if it's good after several years lol.</p>

<p>Christiaan..I have a story about my 70-200. I used to shoot with 80-200AF  so when the new one came out

I ws very happy. I got good sharp photos with it, but missed many many shots due out of focus, being soft, etc. Finall

y on one important shoot the lens died all together. Since I tend to blame my abilities rather than the equipment, I h

ad a hard time admitting it could be broken and had my local shop check it out, and sure enough it was the lens. N

ikon did a major repair on it, and now I have like a 90% "keeper" rate.  I look back at my catalog now and se

e so many soft images! So in the future I won't second guess myself...it may be the equipment and not the operator.

BTW this was the only piece of Nikon equipment I ever had fail....unless I'm in denial about the vignetting I'm getti

ng with a consumer lens I'm using as a walk around on a D300. To be honest sometimes I am shocked at the cheap q

uality of some of the Nikon lenses. I was showing someone how to use a D40 recently and wow that lens was real

ly almost useless imo. I'd rather have an old metal lens...in fact I do

lol.<br>

And Oskar, I use a D700 and haven't seen any trouble with lens...but then again I don't shoot edge to

edge. 90% of what i shoot is a moving target so rarely care about the edge of a corner. I guess landsc

ape and or buildings/interiors would care very much ho

wever.</P>

Thanks for the comments, and yes I full intentions of waiting for reviews before dropping 8k!

 

And thinks Lil for your kind comment on my work :)

 

My "workhorse" lens is the 70-200 2.8, plus I have the 28-70 2.8, along wth 300 f4 AFS and unfortunately the 12-24 f4 DX (unfortunate only because I am done with DX format). And of course the 50 and 85 mm 1.8's. Plan to upgrade to the 14-24.

I hope it was OK to quote on from another thread, but I would to explore this further and didn't want it to get caught in

the shuffle.

 

 

Bruce Stenman wrote:

 

"It is a trade-off between getting 50% greater resolution (which with some lenses will reduce IQ) and losing high ISO

capability by a factor of 2 f-stops. Commercial photographers and people making fine art landscape prints for gallery

sales may see the D3x as an attractive alternative to a MF camera, especially in terms of price."

 

I need great detail and large files , so am considering this camera or possibly going MF. My cameras do pay for

themselves so this is not an issue, but yet I'd like to know about the loss of quailty with the lenses. I use all pro

lenses (2.8 or lower) so is this something I have to worry about with a higher mp camera, and if so, why. because of

my need for 5 fps I haven't made the MF leap so am thinking this camera would be a good compromise.

 

Can we discuss why the IQ goes down with some lenses...and which ones? And why? I know it's been discussed

before but I am unclear.

 

thanks :)

Thanks everyone for your input. i really appreciate the effort.

 

yes hashim i could just go ahead and shoot and not question but I am a curious person as to why things work the way they do.

 

Now if both the D300 and D700 are 12 mp wouldn't the full frame spread out the pixels more? It looks like FX has more detail so how is that possible?

Then the 12-24 on an Fx will be like a fisheye almost.

 

OK someone on this board it would be 18-36. Sorry.

"Remember high school math. a^2 + b^2 = c^2. (Pythagorean Theorem) That's how you determing the diagonal of the sensor/film size and the normal lens for your camera.."

 

oh jeez I'm in trouble now.

 

Nick writes:

"ALL lenses are marked with reference to 35mm, full frame, i.e., "FX" dimensions. As everyone has said the focal length doesn't change when a lens (FX or DX) is used with a DX body--just the field of view."

 

A 12-24 is marked 12 -24...with 35 mm as its reference.

 

Why does it convert to 18-36 on a FX camera (which has a 35mm sensor) or am I assuming. Or should I just go away and not think too hard about it.

Well it helps if this statement is correct. the 12-24 is realy an 18 to 36 but on a DX body you are just seeing the 12-24 center portion?

 

So tht means the 18-135 is really a 24-175? (aprox)

OK...here we go....if it's been answered please point me to it...I probably won't understand it anyway. Having a tough

time understanding the whys of dx vs fx conversion of focal length. Yes I know you get more "reach" with a DX lens.

So I understand that I won't have as much with FX. (Never really had to think this much with film lol)

 

So...here's the thing. I've been reading my 12-24 DX will convert to 18-36. Doesn't that make it longer? A while back i

posted the question "What makes a lens digital" and from the answer I assumed it meant the diference is inherent in

the sensor of the camera based on the 35 m LR system...not the lens. The lens is what it is...so why would 12-24

convert longer and not to 9-18 mm on an FX? I understand my 70-200 will be "true" to it's focal length, as will the 28-

70....in fact al the non DX lens. I only have one other...a cheap walk around 18-135 ...what will that convert to? Can it

be used on the D700? It already vignettes on the dx!

 

Sorry for not understanding this. I AM sort of smart. I mean I shoot on manual and everything :) But this stuff is not

making sense to me.

Shun the warrenty did cover the repair 100% I did think there was something wrong at first....it would make a clunking noise when focusing, I think I even posted abut it here some years ago. But it never got bad enough in the focusing until this year..and it was so intermittent. I bought the lens in 05, trading up frm an 80-200 non afs lens.

Thanks Robert....I guess it was the AFS motor? I had upgraded to this lens from a AF lens so really didn't know what I was missing....that is until it completly stopped working.

Almost a month ago my af on my 70-200 would just stop in the middle of a shoot.

Ive had this lens over 3 years and sometimes it would just act up...I just always

had lots of oof images but figured it was me. manual focus was fine, but my

eyes...not so good. So it finally pretty much died, sent it in. It was gone almost a

month for parts. Just got it back, did a test shoot with it and all I can say is wow

I've been shooting with a broken lens for three years. Can't believe the sharpness

and ease of focus. Anyone else have this problem with this lens? Do you know

what a "level B2" repair is? Thanks

Hi Pat, I have the D300 and it is a great camera for animal portraiture. If you look at my portfolio you will see I do a lot of it :) I think you may miss the reach with the D3 if you are used to the crop factor on the D200 as animals distort easily with shorter focal length. I have found 55 mm is too short for longer nosed dogs. Of course, if money isn't a factor I would get both :) You will be surprised at how good the right out of the camera the exposures are with D300 compared to the 200. As you know photographing black and white animals can be chalegning but you won't have a problem with blown highlights.

Lil I photograph horses professionaly, about 80% of my work. As you know it is tricky and yes a fast lens is the choice, but for horses I rarely use any other lens than 70-200 2.8. Horses distort very easily and look best at least 100-150 mm. Occasionaly if i do want the distortion I use the 12-24 f4. I love this lens. I never use my 28-70 on horses because the images seem boring to me...some slight distorion but not enough to see it wasn't an accident.

I am sort of underwhelmed with this camera. I have 5 Nikon cameras and all pro lenses so am loyal to the product...but just don't see what the fuss is about. Maybe i got a bum one?

 

D-lighting, I get a orangy color cast in the shadows if there is the slightest warm tone.

 

Some images appear over-sharpened, with those little amoemba type artifacts. I have it set to default sharpening....shoot 14 bit raw with small jpg.

 

Focusing is the same as D200....fast but nothing special. I manual focus most of the time....even in action.

 

fps--i see no difference in the speed. The shutter is not as hair trigger as the D200. The shutter is very loud though compared to other nikons. ( I was shooting and someone asked if I could turn it off like a P&S lol)

 

ISO-- I do see a big improvemnt here....maybe 1-1 1/2 stops.

 

LCD--big improvement

 

File size-- big...in fact I think maybe too big which is why I see artifacts...maybe too much compression in jpgs. With the D200 I could print 24-30 with no problem so not sure 12 mp is needed. There is more detail in these files but artifacty on my screen. In all fairness I haven't printed a large file yet but I trash prints that show any evidence of digital arifacts. I sell prints so am picky.

 

Battery-- it eats them like the D200, which forces me to get a grip...that will set me back another 500.00 with the necessary battery, charger, cap, etc. I was hoping to use this camera to its full potential without a grip.

 

Exposure-- Really good...no blown highlights, but tends on the side of underexposure, wich is easier to work with. The matrix metering seems to work like center weighted at times.

 

I'm reluctant to use this camera as a main body at this point and for now it will be a backup. I've taken 500 shots with it....need to test it more which is frustrating.

 

Workflow-- this could be why I am less than thrilled. I don't want to upgrade to CS3 and have to use NX to open raw files (I do like the D lighting in NX!) but then have to reopen as TIF in CS2 which is very time consuming. Can't imagine doing an event this way.

 

Would i stil have bought it? yes, becuase of the one stop advantage...was tired of shooting at 200 iso and ready to buy a 5D

 

Just my opinion and experience :)

Kevin I'm glad you mentioned the "orange" when D lighting is activated. I'm finding the same thing...along with a color cast if there are some warm tones in the photo (more than the example shown here.) I don't use the D lighting for that reason. The color cast shows up in jpgs but not in the raw file.

I photograph horses and dogs...it's what i do, and yes a fast moving object towards you is the most challenging. Takes a lot of practice. I use the center af point only..tried just about every other way on the D200 and this works best in my experience.

matt that was really funny.

I've had both 2400 and 3800. The 2400 worked flawlessly but the ink cartidges are small. I bought the 3800. The first one lasted a couple months before it broke...paper wouldn't load and it had horizonal lines through the prints. Epson overnighted me a replacement. Right out of the box it wouldn't work....it made an awful grinding noise. Espon overnighted me another one after I held the phone up to tech and he could hear the noise the 3800 made. Finally number three 3800 seems to be working...but I've had it less than a month so we'll see. On the plus side I got 3 sets of ink from Epson, which cost more than the printer.

 

When the 3800 works it makes beautiful prints. When it doesn't...well...it can put you in a jam if you really need a print.

Having an unusual name helps I think. People always remember it. Yes, this is my real name.

Yes it is paper selction. Since you don't have to swap inks the menu comes up all the papers listed under either photo or matte. Much better eystem! Since that happens all the papers are always there.

I don't know why it does this...but it has happened to me when I switched matte to photo black. I don't think it is Mac issue as I have a PC &Cs2. When it happens I have to turn off and on the printer. Shut down PS, and sometimes even reboot. It does eventually show. I just got the 3800 so won't have to swap out inks plus get larger prints now. maybe the drivers are held in the RAM...I don't know.

I'm sorry to post this here but can't find the feedback forum, and I've sent an

email but haven't gotten a response as ironicaly not all "non subscribers"

emails are read (even though I am now a subscriber and have been in the past).

 

I renewed my subscription but the site won't reflect that, even though it took

it out of my paypal account. Any advice? I can't upload images.

yea I'm using a D200 and D70...70-200 on one and 300 on the other. The 80-400 would make things easier at times ;) I do need the flexibility of the zoom due to the unpredicatable nature of my subjects. Wish I could afford the 200-400!

I recently rented this lens and it was slow as far as focusing...and very

sticky. I've tried 2 of these lens and both were too sticky for me. I have a 70-

200 2.8 and 300 f4 but really need a bit more reach. The TC had focusing issues

too if the lighting was a all challenging. Any ideas if this lens move up to an

AFS model? or other affodable options (meaning under 5 K!) for this focal

length?